TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

GTChessplayer Archive

View 10 posts and 467 comments by GTChessplayer 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)
0

Please show that parents with custody spend less time with their children than do parents with custody. Looking at how it's defined. It defines at as which to "home" the child is placed. Now you have to show that mothers aren't in their homes so often that the non-custody father actually has more time with the kid.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:18 AM
-5

Yeah, not buying it. Erection == "Yes".
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:03 AM
-1

No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that the slightly higher incident rate of women being the abuser is easily explained as a natural consequence of women more likely having custody of the child more often; they're more often around the child, hence they have more chances to abuse. When taking in those factors, women come out ahead, per capita based on child custody.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:53 AM
-4

I understand it exactly. At any rate, erection == "yes".
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:19 AM
1

That 8-9% percentage point disparity is only for unique perpetrators. It doesn't account for duplicate perpetrators. I don't see how it's relevant when establishing that men/women are more evil than each other. My statistics about getting custody is also for unique divorce cases, so I fail to see your useless point.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:06 AM
-8

How would a man have a timely erection if he was unconscious? In any circumstance, erection == yes, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:55 AM
1

9.9/11.5 million mothers received custody of their kids That's 86% of mothers having primary custody of their kids. That means that women drastically are around their children more than men. The difference in percentage points between father and mother abuse (8 or 9% in favor of the father) is meaningless when you see that women have custody of the child 400% more often than fathers do. So proportionately speaking, women are doing much better than men, because women have the child much more than…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:38 AM
-3

9.9/11.5 million mothers received custody of their kids That's 86% of mothers having primary custody of their kids. That means that women drastically are around their children more than men. The difference in percentage points between father and mother abuse (8 or 9% in favor of the father) is meaningless when you see that women have custody of the child 400% more often than fathers do. So proportionately speaking, women are doing much better than men, because women have the child much more than…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:28 AM
-1

9.9/11.5 million mothers received custody of their kids That's 86% of mothers having primary custody of their kids. That means that women drastically are around their children more than men. The difference in percentage points between father and mother abuse (8 or 9% in favor of the father) is meaningless when you see that women have custody of the child 400% more often than fathers do. So proportionately speaking, women are doing much better than men, because women have the child much more than…
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:15 AM
-8

None of those, not a single one of them disproves any of my stance. You include dumb links to Australian tabloids to prove your point? Please. I'll stick to known facts and research: 1) Men abuse children more than women, per capita custody 2) non-parent/child child abuse occurs more with men being the aggressor. 3) men commit more violent crimes and rapes as a whole than women do. Try linking to some real actual research instead of hivemind blogs and tabloids.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 01:54 AM
-3

Proportionately to the number of mothers who have custody of their kids. The distant second is fathers Father's are an even FARTHER distant second when it comes to having custody of their kids. (29.2% vs. 17.1% for fathers) Considering that mother's are 3:1 likely to have custody of their children, the odds are in their favor. Non-child child abuse is done more by men than women.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 01:01 AM
-5

Not proportionately. Proportionately, the women make out ahead.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 12:08 AM
-15

Men do more sexual abuse than women. More women have custody than do men; percentage wise, the tables are in womens' favor.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 11:10 PM
1

Not really. Like they say - Correlation is not causation. And a lot of those studies have been found to have biases and errors. No they haven't. None of them have. All that's been claimed is "they didn't consider every possible counter case" - which is true for any study. LOL! Mr. American Patriot is really desperate to preserve his "culture". Well, we are the world leader, after all. I did. Those links contains summaries of major studies. Please link the studies themselves, not "summaries", aka…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 05:54 AM
1

hmmmmm...... I wonder why that is? Resistance from people like you. Resistance from religious groups. Nope. I'm not religious. The health benefits are well documented. Hopefully we can make it a requirement, as it should be. If only you clicked the links I gave in my reply. Linking to Reddit != Linking to a study. Please, link to a study. For example, the Aussie pdf is not a peer-reviewed publication; it's meaningless. Anyone could produce such a pdf.
/r/MensRights31/03/12 05:13 AM
0

Yeah, a bunch of uncut nanny boy europeans with no research output. Hooray!! hmmm is that why...... Male circumcision was banned in public hospitals by various state goverments. Links: (1) (2) The move was supported by Australian Medical Association. Circumcision is not banned in the US in any state, nanny boy. Why do YOU refuse to accept published evidence against your dogma? You haven't referenced a single study. Is that the same country that said lied that there were WMDs in Iraq and engaged …
/r/MensRights31/03/12 04:59 AM
0

Fact: Royal Australasian College of Physicians, British Medical Association, Canadian Pediatric Society, Public Health Association of Australia and other european medical organizations agree with me. No, they don't. You've only shown the 3rd tier Australian crummy organization agrees with you. Why do you refuse to accept published evidence against your dogma, but accept simpleton statements with no publications in favor of your dogma? Circumcision is necessary and should be a requirement. All yo…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 04:43 AM
0

Royal Australasian College of Physicians Stopped reading here. The rest of your post isn't worth reading if you're going to cite 3rd tier organizations that aren't research organizations. Fact: The American Cancer Society agrees with me in every single way, from the prevention of UTI, penile cancer, and the spread of STDs. The sad fact that you discredit the American Cancer Society with the "Royal Australasian College of Physicians" is a joke. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL National Coalition for Men, Amer…
/r/MensRights31/03/12 02:07 AM
0

The conclusion you are drawing from that page is that infant circumcision is a reasonable measure to take to lower your lifetime risk of penile cancer. While HPV infection may be more likely in intact men, other infections may be less so. Yeah, you're drawing that conclusion. First, you draw the conclusion that other infections are less likely with intactivists; this is unfounded. All I'm saying is that there is medical evidence to show that circumcision has benefits. Just like anything else tha…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 03:13 AM
-1

Interesting. So you didn't read the studies you draw support from. That would imply that you think there is another way to draw valid conclusions than to read studies and personally vet their methodology. Have you ever thought about how that process works? You're not even making sense at this point. If you want to show a study exists that refutes another study, then simply provide the citation for the refuting study. "Circumcision is the removal of all (or a part) of the foreskin. This procedure…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 01:24 AM
1

See, you're just deflecting. I can actually point to studies that actually support my statements. You can't. And onto your deified American Cancer Society, even they state that it promotes the contraction of STDs. http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors
/r/MensRights29/03/12 11:08 PM
0

They said that when cases of phimosis and poor hygiene were taken into account, the higher incidence of cancer among uncircumcised men went away. Please provide those studies and explain why those studies are more credible than the studies that prove the link between STDs, cancer, and UTI. I gather you want to see the text of the study in which this calculation was done, or you wouldn't find such a claim credible coming from the American Cancer Society? Correct. Address the above two points, bec…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:41 PM
-1

You really don't see how the American Cancer Society here is saying that the research that suggested that circumcision was a way to prevent penile cancer was flawed, because they didn't account for cases of phimosis and bad hygiene? Right, exactly what I said: they just simply state that these are potential explanations to the problem. They don't actually provide any studies or evidence to conclusively state "these are the problems". Please, provide those actual studies.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 08:28 PM
-1

The American Cancer Society does No it doesn't. It doesn't say it's wrong once. It just states that there might be possible explanations for the phenomenon. Not once does it say "those findings are false or unfounded". Please show me where the American Cancer Society says that those findings were wrong and unfounded, and not "there are possible explanations". The STD studies are well known to be flawed. There isn't a single study in the world that doesn't have drawbacks and flaws. You have not d…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:23 PM
-2

without any discussion of the research behind it. You cite a blog - a geocities quality blog, that makes no references to any quality material, yet you question WebMD, in which the articles are peer reviewed by actual medical doctors. Amazing! I'm not doing your homework for you. All of the articles and publications are out there; I've given you everything you need. Do you really think that WebMD statement is wrong? It looks to me like Schoen is relying on outdated research and refusing to ackno…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 01:42 PM
-5

You're not too bright, are you? The citation for 10 fold decrease in penile cancer, and the decrease in male UTI was already given. Here, allow me to do your homework for you: http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:10 PM
-3

i've already provided the citation for that in this thread. If you don't want to read my links, I'm not going to help you.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 08:03 PM
-1

It's completely true. Linking to a hivemind blog-style Website does nothing to support your call.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:44 PM
-2

Name on "medical society" that completely agrees with you. Already medical research has shown that it does reduce penial cancer by 10 fold.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:18 PM
-2

Penile cancer is a statistical joke, Right, but the 118 "deaths" out of millions done a year isn't a statistical joke? LOOOOOOOL. Talk about a farce. child abuse. healthcare.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 04:21 AM
-2

Please, they include "psychological" effects in their classification of "post operation complications". That's bogus; just a bunch of nanny boy's complaining is not a post-op complication. 2nd of all, this article is the most biased article I've ever read. Who wrote it? One of you? "Well, it does significantly reduce the chances of penile cancer, but that's really not going to happen anyways!" "UTIs? Nah, those don't happen anyways!" These articles are a joke. Next time like me to some relevant …
/r/MensRights28/03/12 12:42 AM
-6

It's totally beneficial.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 12:15 AM
-2

In what capacity? From a bad interaction with the anesthesia? People die from routine surgeries all the time, even tonsil removals. 118 out of the millions a year isn't so bad.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:48 PM
-12

Why? Performing a beneficial surgery on your kids now makes a parent sick? Please.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 03:10 PM
-15

I don't have any kids, but I most certainly will.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:26 PM
-14

I don't think that's true.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:24 PM
-13

Actually, when I was in the UK, this topic came up: women prefer uncircumcised, and while it's normal in the UK, it's not the majority.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 12:06 PM
-19

I don't see what's wrong with what she said. It's just the reality of the situation. If you want your son to be picked on the USA, leave him intact. She even says something in your favor, right after that. Wow, you nanny-boys are really trying hard to justify your "cause".
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:54 AM
-1

The subject presented is interesting and thought provoking regardless. Great. That's not his agenda, though. He clearly states that his mother blatantly said this and that's completely unfounded. That would explain a lot. Great at math and engineering, not so much at human interaction or independent thought. Pretty sure you need independent thought to be innovative in math, engineering, and science. In fact, my thoughts are so independent, I completely debunked a nanny-boy festival. You are all …
/r/MensRights22/03/12 09:51 PM
-2

If it's not word for word then I can't trust his interpretation. It looks like to me that his instilling his own interpretations into her words. Really what I'm trying to say is that you are the worst type of person. Believing the OP's nonsense is like believing the bible.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 02:40 PM
-1

Yeah, I doubt it. It's a complete farce. He generate a very long pro-MRA stance rant, with no proof that it ever happened, at all. Believing this is like believing the bible.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 02:30 PM
-13

Yeah, I HIGHLY doubt your mom said all of this and you just somehow happened to remember it and quote it for later. Please. This is the biggest farce of a post I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 05:06 AM
1

That amount is more then normal for one month. Judging by her verbiage, it's safe to say they're both low income.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 09:35 PM
7

It depends. was this backpay childsupport, i.e., money he already owed her and that she already spent out of her own savings? Given the high amount for one single check, and the nature of the check, it's safe to say she's just getting what was already owed to her.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:28 PM
1

"Leaving a career" in this case means enjoying the comforts and securities paid for through someone else's work, Not really. Doing housework and raising the kids so the other person can generate the income is an extremely time consuming and taxing job. In fact, the research shows how beneficial it is to the family if one person stays home. Not-working is not a sacrifice. Giving up a career to support your family is a sacrifice. You claim it's "not working", but that's a farse. Those benefits are…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 09:47 PM
0

Yeah, last time I checked, most women who have kids actually do take care of them.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 06:06 PM
0

No, just pointing out the truth. It's not my fault you're too brainwashed to accept it.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 02:17 PM
1

How do you derive that these women "don't want to take care of the kids as much" from that? Most likely the women will win the kids in court.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 01:02 PM
0

You're the one who accused me of claiming something you didn't say twice. You're the one who got angry because the serious flaws in your "logic" were pointed out. You acted like a cuckolded pissy bitch.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 12:44 PM
0

When was the first time? Please provide a source for this. It's clear that you're just a vehement fanatic that wasn't good enough to attend a first tier university. There are so many problems with your first post it's not even funny. "All of that free money". It's not free money. It's money she's contractually obligated to because of the joint decisions they made during marriage. Secondly, alimony isn't given in excessive amounts, outside of a few anecdotal cases. Alimony is used to help the per…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 06:40 AM
0

Taking care of a home...is stuff that's going to get taken care of regardless Not necessarily. Not necessarily to the same quality or standard as before. I lived it for a short while between jobs (SAHD) and it was the best thing since sliced bread. Doubtful. Sitting around playing video games isn't what housework is all about.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 05:57 AM
1

Yeah, that just shows your ignorance. Taking care of the home is not an easy or quick job. Logic like this is exactly why you weren't good enough for a top tier university.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 05:43 AM
1

She already paid for her decision up front by leaving her career. She pays afterwards via lost experience, time, and marketability, and he pays to compensate for a portion of that.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:49 AM
1

If she left her field because the couple made a mutual decision for her to leave her field, then he is responsible for that decision just as much as she is. If he doesn't want to be responsible for that decision, he can 1) not marry her, or 2) find someone who won't leave her career. She rolled the dice Nope. They. He rolled the dice as well and thus has to pay for his decisions, just as she does.
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:21 AM
2

he made a decision to leave her career and become a housewife, and there are consequences to that decision (as Bobsutan already pointed out). This is only half of the story. THEY made the decision for her to leave her career and become a housewife. Those decisions are mutual. Becasue the husband was involved in that decision, I think that she does deserve some alimony for a few years in order to get back on her feet, but that's should be more than enough. Oh, you and I agree then. Okay, good. I …
/r/MensRights12/03/12 03:11 AM
1

I agree with your point, but your logic is wrong. If anyone leaves an important field, even for 5 years, your chances of getting a quality job in that field are very hard, especially in a field that changes rapidly, such as engineering or science.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 04:20 PM
-2

How many religions dictate that men must be subservient to their women and are inferior to their women?
/r/MensRights29/02/12 02:49 AM
-5

That's not an archived link. There's no link to the original article, at all. Where's the authenticity? Just because a bunch of people say something's true, doesn't make it true. Dailycampus is run by a pesky MRA, nothing more, nothing less. The whole thing is made up and is a complete fabrication designed to cause hysteria with an already vehement religious group (MRA).
/r/MensRights28/02/12 07:30 AM
-18

That's not the original news alert. It's just as likely to be some pesky MRA who works for the site as it is the truth.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 02:22 AM
-15

Please show the actual Web page.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 12:42 AM
-16

How would one notice this from that screenshot? How would you notice that it's a Website? Geeee, I wonder. What are you talking about? The only people claiming that this announcement is true are pesky MRAs and 9/11 truther Websites like Free Republic.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 12:26 AM
-20

It's a fake report. If you notice, this submission is an actual Website at UConn, but said announcemenet doesn't actually exists. So, yes, since there's actually 0.00 proof that this happened (other than links to 9/11 conspiracy sites like freerepublic), I'm going to go out on a limb here and call it another typical example of mens' rights[sic] hyseria.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 09:59 PM
3

Yeah, it is. A legit mens' rights issue, and not something about a mother burning a house down, or something.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 01:28 PM
-1

The sex was consensual, so I don't see the problem here.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:24 PM
-2

1 & 2) I already gave you the story that was submitted here. You can easily search for it on here and find the comments. It's not my fault you're incapable of doing simple homework. 3) So then, violence against women is still valid even if the violence was committed by other women. Your original 3), is thus, completely moot, by your own admission. 4) I already gave you the state departments link there. You can peruse their reports if you want. Are you saying it's not socially acceptable like pla…
/r/MensRights30/01/12 08:12 PM
-1

1) Right in r/mensrights In fact, people have pointed me to several "studies" (basically blog posts) that claim to debunk the "feminist myth" that violence against women is a global problem 2) It was during a discussion on a submission about this http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/ 3) I don't see how it's relelvant. The same MRAs said that violence against men was still valid, even if most of it was committed by men. 4) Quite often. It's extremely popular in Asian countries and especially the middle eas…
/r/MensRights30/01/12 06:36 PM
-4

I fail to see how I'm trolling. This is what I've been told in many debates with MRA's.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 06:15 PM
-19

This is false. Most sex crimes against children are committed by men.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 05:49 PM
-4

None of my posts or facts can be defeated. That's the problem with this reddit; it's not based on facts or logic, but rather is just a group of cuckolded fanatics.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 01:07 PM
1

See? Just name one. Come on.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 01:57 AM
-7

I can see the headlines now.... "Sexist organization offers benefits only to men". Yeah, that won't happen. It would be like what's going on here "Sexist organization only helps women!! Misandry!!". Only fanatics would really care about something like that. running them down for doing so. I'm running you down for being retarded and not discussing things dealing with mens' rights.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:31 AM
1

See, you can't actually point to an example to prove your dogma. It's laughable.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:13 AM
-16

I don't see the big deal. If men want to get together and offer a service for sick men, then so be it. I swear, this sub-reddit keeps getting worse and worse.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 09:40 PM
-3

One second you're bashing A Voice for Men for being a bunch of exaggerated cases and not having any scientific or sociological backing...the next you're claiming killing of females is like some sort of worldwide epidemic compared to cultural misandry. If AVfM exaggerates cases and doesn't give any evidence to back their stuff up, then they've got nothing on you! Is this a joke? See: China, Middle East, Indonesia What cultures consider it acceptable to disown or kill your child because it's a mal…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:51 PM
-1

So what you're saying is male genital mutilation isn't a big deal because something bad that's completely different happens to women. Nope. Again, reading comprehension fail. The reason the mother cut off her son's penis is completely different than circumcision. The mother cut off her son's penis because she wanted a daughter. Boys don't get circumcised because their parents wanted a daughter. The differences are huge. The number of cultures, and the number of women subjected to such cultures, …
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:40 PM
-5

Do you lack reading comprehension? Taking Discrete Math one doesn't give you an understanding of logic, nor does it improve your reading comprehension. You've shown this.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 01:09 PM
-7

A Voice for Men? Please. Just a bunch of exaggerated cases with no scientific or sociological backing. The cultural "misandry" is nothing compared to the killing of females.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 05:44 AM
-1

It's not as bad as it is in middle east countries, or China, where it's part of the culture to get rid of, or disown, your daughters because the man is more desired. All you have on the "misandry" side is a few random wacko women, not a global epidemic of cultural acceptance.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:16 AM
1

The difference is he had 50 counts of this, she had only one.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 04:48 PM
-5

Yeah, because men never tried that defense, either. /sarcasm
/r/MensRights14/01/12 02:15 PM
1

I didn't miss it. I don't see how it's about mens' rights. Was he the only one she lied to? She doesn't have a mother or an aunt? None of the doctors she visited were female?
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:07 PM
-7

Umm, there's really no "outting" if I openly debunk the MRA retardation that goes on here, is there?
/r/MensRights12/01/12 05:20 AM
-3

It doesn't change the fact that: 1) This post has nothing to do with mens' rights. 2) You are a 3rd tier idiot.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 03:04 AM
-9

You act as if: 1) Only a male was lied to 2) Only a male's baby was stolen. You're an idiot. This is a retarded submission.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:40 AM
1

Wow. I'm saving this one. Thank you. It's true. I don't know how you can deny this. It's almost as if you have no understanding of biology, at all. You don't even debate this statement so I'm guessing you agree with it. I could point you to a hundred different studies, articles and facts that contradict feminist propaganda and you would find fault with all of them No such studies exist that have been published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. In fact, for every crackpot study that exists "d…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 04:16 PM
1

death of men less important than plight of women From an evolutionary standpoint, this is true. As I thought, this is turning into name-calling because you can't face reality. Nope, that's you. You're just a denialist. the wholesale support of genocide by women Please show that this is true; that women on the whole for a nation supported genocide.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 02:28 PM
1

OK, I'm just going to assume that you don't think that being dead is worse than any other number of ailments. Let's put that into the "feminist really are crazy" folder. This is stupid. This is your method of refuting a fact? This is sad. Since society (and that means women, too) sends men to do the dirty work, that is to be expected. Only recently were women allowed to make such decisions. Again, you deny women have any responsibility in the horrors they participate in, directly or indirectly. …
/r/MensRights09/01/12 01:57 PM
1

Yes, and men are killed for not conforming to gender roles, too (gays). Not to mention that they are the primary target in any war. I'm not denying that women suffer some unique problems, but I assert that so do men, and that no one is paying attention to that. Good. We agree on something, then. Historically, men aren't the primary target in any war. While the men were out fighting (notice, the men are the ones doing the fighting), the losing village with the remaining women was completely pilla…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:15 PM
1

I think you'll probably find that the rapings in Darfur are accompanied by gendercide of the men. Such is the usual course of ethnic wars. Of course, feminists ignore the men and focus on the women's plight, so as to claim a one-sided victim status for women. 1) Women are victims of genocide there too, and other honor killings and are aborted for not being males. 2) Men are the ones fighting the war there; men are the ones doing the genocide and rapings. 3) MRA's only focus on crimes against mal…
/r/MensRights06/01/12 06:49 PM
1

Please tell me what any of those have to do with violence around the world, such as the rapings in Darfur? Absolutely nothing. Half of those listed aren't even scientific studies!!!! The first one's not scientific, at all. The 2nd one only discusses intimate and domestic violence, which is not what's found in 3rd world countries such as Darfur or Saudi Arabia. If you want to cite a "study" (none of those are even published studies), then at least make the studies germane.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 04:37 AM
1

Nope, I'm saying it doesn't occur anymore than violence against men and thus doesn't deserve a separate "priority status". That's fine, but the statement in discussion doesn't establish that priority. Social science training? Is that like hamburger flipping training? It's training in scientific methods and how to draw logical conclusions from the evidence presented. The government agency that only exists if it pretends women have it oh so worse than men? Would you trust a DEA study on the danger…
/r/MensRights06/01/12 01:22 AM
1

Yes, I did.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 07:47 PM
1

This is not "appeal to authority", this lady does not provide any evidence or citations for any of her claims. It's meaningless.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 04:07 PM
1

As opposed to violence faced by men? Irrelevant to the discussion of violence against women. Are you saying violence against women doesn't occur and is not a valid issue? I think this video does a good job of dissecting "endemic violence against women". Thanks for citing something from a commoner without any scientific training whatsoever. Good job. Random youtuber == truth. Because random youtuber is more knowledgeable than a government agency. You're getting warmer. You're not very intelligent…
/r/MensRights05/01/12 03:38 PM
1

Thanks for citing something from a commoner without any scientific training whatsoever. Good job. Random youtuber == truth.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 03:26 PM
0

This is completely true.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 12:14 AM
0

Well, think of it as a utility function. GOOD - BAD = total utility. Mother.bad > father.bad (supposedly), but the mother.bad only occurs 1/1000 instances. mother.good > father.good, but mother.good occurs 999/1000 times. Now, mother.good just has to be greater than father.good by sufficient margin.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:57 PM
0

Irrelevant to what I just said. Does the State Department have a section making known the violence men in these 3rd world countries face? That has nothing to do with the fact that violence against women is an endemic in 3rd world countries. Irrelevant to what I just said. Not in the slightest. Your original argument was that the statement itself downplays violence against men. "The statement" includes both the statement itself and the implications of a non-existent statement directed at men. The…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 07:28 PM
-5

Men sexually abuse children more than women. Women who abuse children, it's generally their own children, not other children.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 06:01 PM
0

3) There is no subsection focusing on men's issues 4) For the US State Department (and everyone else but us) men's issues are irrelevant Men aren't persecuted throughout the world on a large scale, so men don't face the same issues that women do. You're argument is: "there's no vagina club for men".
/r/MensRights04/01/12 04:41 PM
1

...That's what I just said. They're prioritizing violence against women without a word about violence against men. By only focusing on women, they're essentially arguing that the hardship they're facing is more important. You do realize that: 1) This was only a sub-section of the US State Department that made this statement, not the whole State Department. 2) This subsection specifically focuses on women's issues, hence, male issues are irrelevant, as I stated. 3) That's not what you said. You s…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:39 PM
-2

No, it's not. They're not mutually exclusive. They can have multiple priorities. The statement itself does not place violence against men lower than violence against women. What establishes this priority is their lack of a statement of a violence against men. A more honest, intuitive, and intelligent criticism is: "It should also be a foreign policy initiative to end violence against men". Again: the above statement does not place a priority of importance for women over men. The lack of a simila…
/r/MensRights03/01/12 08:04 PM
-2

both 1 and 2 are false. There is no way to draw a logical conclusion about "men" from the above statement about "women". The above statement is independent of any discussion on men. They are not mutually exclusive: violence about women can be a priority on foreign policy as well as violence against men. Again: they are not mutually exclusive. The above statement addressing concerns for women has nothing to do with a concern, or lack thereof, for men.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 07:29 PM
-5

If the discussion is about whether or not white people are intelligent and innovative, then it's completely pointless and irrelevant to discuss whether Asians are intelligent and inventive; establishing Asian intelligence, or lack thereof, does not establish White intelligence.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 07:05 PM
-7

They're making a statement on a topic: violence against women. It's irrelevant to include other categories in the discussion, since it's not a discussion about violence in general.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 06:50 PM
-12

Yes, it's true, violence against women is huge and it is an endemic. That does not mean that men don't experience violence themselves, though. Stop sensationalizing a true statement for political gains.
/r/MensRights03/01/12 05:56 PM
1

No it doesn't. "Consistent with" means does not contradict. That's not the only definition of consistent, but nice try. Here's another one: "holding firmly together; cohering." So please, provide evidence that her injuries were consistent with some other action. you also need 'inconsistent with alternative hypothesis'. This is false. There are an infinite number of alternative hypothesis. Was it caused by spaghetti? How about a flying spaghetti monster? If you want to state that some alternative…
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:07 AM
3

Well she had sex with Mike Tyson and walked away from the encounter. Most rape victims aren't murdered, hence they "walk away from the encounter". And besides, witness testimony showed that she didn't simply "walk away from the encounter". But ya know, you don't have any evidence to support any of your claims, at all. You never have, and never will. You don't care though; people with educations from 3rd tier universities rarely rely on evidence when questioning dogma.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 02:51 AM
2

Consistent with rape doesn't mean that they were necessarily caused by rape. There is no way to ever "prove" by your definition that any injury was directly caused by any action. What "consistent with" means here is that it was most likely caused by rape, not consensual sex or self infliction. The reason is you don't know what "proof" or "evidence" means. This directly establishes evidence that Tyson raped her. it could have been caused by something other than rape. Not really. It couldn't have …
/r/MensRights01/01/12 10:22 PM
0

Yes, the doctor testified that the injuries were consistent with rape. Please show a doctor's testimony that the injuries were consistent with self-infliction.
/r/MensRights01/01/12 07:14 PM
1

Her injuries were also consistent with consensual sex, especially since they might have been partially self inflicted. Do you have any evidence that her injuries were consistent with consensual sex? (They weren't). Do you have any evidence that her injuries were self inflicted?
/r/MensRights01/01/12 06:32 PM
0

No, he didn't say concerning sexual abuse, he said reporting sexual abuse. He stated that a boy is more likely to accept being sexually abused than a female. "Stigma" is just a reason why he feels a boy is more likely to accept abuse. Action --> reason.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:28 PM
-1

Stating that a boy is more likely to accept being sexually abused than a female.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:45 AM
-8

Yes, it is. It's not my fault if you're not capable of simple logical deduction.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 12:02 AM
-9

Men do not abuse children less than women do. Women are more likely to be the primary care giver, so on average, a woman is exposed to a child more. If you go by abuse per hours exposure, you have no case. If you go be sexual abuse, men abusers completely outnumber female abusers. Woman win in the "emotional abuse" department. Big deal.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 11:52 PM
-7

but I expect there is more stigma to boys reporting their abuse. Nice bigotry. Love it.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 09:58 PM
-8

It's not commonly accepted in r/mensrights, though, hence my submission is just as valid, if not more valid, than any of the daily retardation found here.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 09:46 PM
-12

REally? Then why do I see here daily horrific crimes that women commit upvoted to the highest of upvotes?
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:04 PM
-13

That's in Canada, not the US. Most sex abuse is committed by men, though. http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16222970/man-accused-of-raping-and-murdering-girl-appears-in-court
/r/MensRights10/12/11 05:03 PM
-4

Ah, so he's a serial criminal. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 05:19 PM
-5

Prosecutor David Fornshell said Davis faces 72 years in prison if convicted on the Warren County crimes. That's similar to this case, and except in this case, the court ruled against the man. In your case, how did the court rule? Oh, you don't know?
/r/MensRights03/12/11 04:42 PM
0

Please don't try to pretend that condoms are as effective as the pill. Statistically, they're not much worse. Condoms are something like 98% effective. There's also a vasectomy. And as I stated: if the male is so concerned with this, he doesn't have to have sex, reducing his chance of getting the girl pregnant down to 0. Imagine that. The male has the option of reducing pregnancy down to 0. Amazing! This is not only about responsibilities, it's about rights. A man has just as much right to perso…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 12:55 PM
-1

Stop, for one moment, thinking about how this affects the woman. Yes, women have burdens that a man does not have. They also have choices and rights a man does not have, to mitigate and equalize those burdens. Exactly, because biology does not dictate that men and woman are exactly the same. Since it's not identical at the biological level, there's no way to make it fair at the legal level. Simple game theory disproves your "logic". The woman can't force the man to have 100% responsibility. The …
/r/MensRights01/12/11 03:57 AM
0

So I'm wrong when I said that she was fraudulent and should be punished? I love it: you state I'm absurdly wrong for saying she was fraudulent in lying about the conditions of the contract, and then go on to state that she was in the wrong about lying about the terms of the contract!!! This is amazing. I've never seen such stupidity in my life. "You are wrong, but I am right because I am saying the exact same thing you are!!!" -- Gareth321 Brilliant.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 11:16 PM
0

Sex without consent, therefore rape. Not hard. The sex was with consent. It doesn't say anything about positions or the chemicals used during sex. It simply says sex. The two agreed to have sex, thus, it's not rape. Whether or not the man used the correct chemicals is completely different. then it would be rape Show me in the definition where it says consent is conditional upon chemical substances.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 08:28 PM
-1

If she chooses to place the child for adoption, the man can choose to retain sole custody and raise the child, though he usually isn't informed about this. The woman can't force the man to have 100% responsibility, though. The default is: the man has 0%. The default for a woman is 100%. To get 0, the mother must perform a 2nd action and get a medical procedure. To get 0, the man never has to go through a medical procedure.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 07:06 PM
0

I agree it's not the sex to which he consented, but as I stated, that doesn't mean it's rape. Rape does not mean "he said he was going to use Durex, but he used Trojan instead!". She didn't consent to Trojan, hence she was raped? Please. This isn't rape. It's clearly fraud on her part; even financial fraud and the man shouldn't be responsible and should be compensated and she should be punished. It's not rape, however.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:50 PM
-4

This is the problem. You are framing a woman's choices as burdens. They are burdens, because with what you are proposing, a woman's choice is based party on a man's decision; you're adding an entire level of indirection. A woman could never make a man have to go through a medical procedure to opt out. If a man opts out, a woman is left with 100% percent responsibility. She has to get a medical procedure to get to 0%. There's a two step process: the man opts out --.> the woman gets a medical proc…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:14 PM
-1

The woman does not have to raise the child if she doesn't want to, regardless of what the man wants. She can put the child up for adoption, then she has 0% responsibility beyond birth, the man has 0% responsibility beyond birth. Right. She can't ever make the man have 100% responsibility, though. If the man opts out, it forces 100% responsibility on the woman: keep it, abort, or give it up for adoption. All of those equate to a burden she has to handle 100% on her own.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:17 PM
-3

It is extremely hard to prove. But even when women openly admit they've done this, it's still not considered a crime. It's considered "dishonest" or a "violation of trust" rather than a criminal act. I agree, this needs to change. That does not equate to, however, that men should be able to opt out. We've taken all choice wrt fatherhood away from men, even though we keep them shackled to their parental obligations. Why would women NOT make unilateral decisions wrt reproduction if they are enable…
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:59 PM
-2

Under parental opt out proposals, if a man wants to keep the baby and raise it, and the woman would prefer to give it up for adoption, then the man would be left with 100% responsibility. That's if the man chooses. The woman can't force that on a man. With what is proposed here, a man could force 100% on the woman. It's simple game theory and you can't disprove it, that's why you have to fallaciously equate "choice" with "no choice" (force).
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:01 PM
1

For this case, and similar cases, the man should be able to opt out, I completely agree. The woman committed a crime. The reason I said #2 in my OP was because his claim is hard to prove, unless he's kept logs of their conversations.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:50 PM
0

That's interesting. I haven't thought about it in depth, but I definitely think there should be legal consequences and the father shouldn't be responsible for the child if he doesn't want to be. I don't know if I would classify either crime you've mentioned as "rape" as sex was consensual. "He said he was going to wear Durex but he wore Trojan! RAPE!" However, this is all hard to prove legally.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:39 PM
-2

I don't disagree that there's a bit of a double standard, but biologically, the situation is not equal, so I fail to see how it could be equal legislatively. If the woman opts out: the man has 0% responsibility. If the man opts out: the woman is left with 100% responsibility. (Having to have an abortion or give it up for adoption is still a responsibility she is left with and not the male). If the woman doesn't opt out, both are left with 50% responsibility. There is no way for a woman to leave …
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:18 PM
14

1) This should be fraud. I agree. 2) You should have put your hedonism aside and kept responsibility over your actions. You left safety in another person's hands and you got burned. Next time, trust nobody but yourself.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:32 PM
-2

umm.. they are. Remember this? "...or cause them to die" If we are comparing sexual abuse to death... then you just proved the point for me. Thanks. Please show that women kill more than men do. From all of the stats I see, men, by far, commit the most murders. FACT: most violent criminals are men.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:20 PM
-1

Whats misleading... you mean the numbers? The title implies that the image states that "only" woman can stop child abuse. This is false. or cause them to die... sure. I can find tons of articles. Maybe, instead of focusing on extremes, an average would be somewhere in between... Minimizing the act of abuse down to "mean things" definitely doesnt help though. I don't care about articles written by pesky MRAs, I care about facts. Further, you introduced the child SEXUAL abuse qualifier... while ev…
/r/MensRights27/11/11 06:25 PM
-2

Approximately 58 percent (57.9%) of perpetrators were women and 42 percent (42.1%) of perpetrators were men. This is misleading. Women are more likely to have primary care of the children than are men. You're right that I should have been more accurate when I meant sexual abuse, rather than emotional or verbal. Men are the perverts who sexually abuse children; women just say mean things to them.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 03:05 PM
-21

It doesn't say only women can stop child abuse. It also says the mother did the beating. Not sure what your problem is, here. Men abuse children more than women do.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 05:15 AM
-1

Bullshit, I just outlined how you do it: Give men the same rights as women. Done and done. No, this has already been proven wrong. Men opt out == woman has 100% responsibility. Women out out == men have 0% responsibility. Nope, the woman still has the freedom to opt out, a choice the man does not have in any case. No, because her decision then is based on his decision, this two steps: his decision --> her decision. With her opting out, it's only 1 decision and it doesn't have any medical consequ…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 11:09 PM
0

This is where the fucked up reproductive rights come to light. When the mother opts out the father should be first up for keeping the child, only in cases where the mother would give up the child of course. Perhaps artificial wombs will avert abortion. It's not fucked up, it's biology. Pregnancy is not equal on a biological level, so there is no way for it to be equal on a legal level. No possible way, what so ever. The father doesn't have to pay while the baby is in the womb; it's not a person …
/r/MensRights23/11/11 10:40 PM
-1

If the mother opts out: 0% responsibility for both. If the father opts out: 100% responsibility for the mother, 0% for the father. If the mother doesn't opt out: 50% for the mother, 50% for the father. THere is no way for the mother to leave the father with 100%, so there should be no way for the father to leave the mother with 100%.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 10:06 PM
0

Women can opt out as well. Giving men that same right just means they'll have equal rights for a change. Why are you against equal rights? Right, and when a woman opts out on her own, neither party is left with any responsibility. Woman opts out: 0% burden for both. Man opts out: 100% burden for the woman. Woman doesn't opt out: 50% burden for both. There is no way for the woman to inherently leave the man with 100% burden, but with what you're proposing, there is a way for a man to leave a woma…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 09:44 PM
-3

When the mother opts out, the father is left with 0% of the responsibility. When the father opts out, the mother is left with 100% of the responsibility. The if the mother doesn't opt out, then it's 50-50. Fair is fair. The burden is shared 50-50, or nobody has any burden at all.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 09:01 PM
-1

So for the 99.5% other births, we should allow the father to walk away completely free leaving the woman with 100% of the responsibility? Suppose half of the fathers walk away and leave the mother stranded: that's 2 million mother's you're willing to leave stranded. Yes, let's ruin it for 2 million mothers to save 20k "fathers".
/r/MensRights23/11/11 08:36 PM
1

No but I now know someone who is. Good job. You realized you were wrong (a man has to pay for the child when a woman gets an abortion), so you say I'm retarded. That's interesting. I bet they are less than 1% or hyphenated names. Wrong on everything.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 03:48 PM
1

That's because our Feminist courts give custody to the mother. Plus she gets almost 100% of the assets plus future income. This doesn't make sense. If the man opts out, the woman is left with 100% of the responsibility; that has nothing to do with feminist courts, that's the way it is. I wouldn't call child support and alimony 0% of responsibility, the man is still responsible to get a very well paying job or work very long hours to support two houses and two families. IF the woman opts out, the…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 03:09 PM
0

Why such precautions if you are sure the LAW will protect you. It's better to avoid such situations than dealing with the stress of it all later. Seems pretty logical to me. The Feminist Family Courts will rob you of your child, your house, you car, and your income for years and years, till your daughter is 18 or even 22. Well, half of it is your child, unless you can prove she lied to you. It takes two to make a child. The man should be responsible if he knowingly took on the risk of having sex…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 01:12 PM
2

You don't need to change parenthood laws to solve this problem. This would simply be a case of fraud in which case the father should be able to opt out. You don't need to let all fathers opt out just to handle one or two exceptional cases. I know of a girl who used to let me go at it raw, but I never did.. I didn't trust her for this very reason.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:57 AM
0

Except that men make up 99.9999999% of combat deaths in human history, not to mention a majority of civilian/collateral damage deaths. Um, that's what I said. How is this not clear? There is also the fact that all humans existing today are descended from only about 40% of all the males that ever lived, and about 80% of all the females that ever lived. That's not a fact. Quite frankly, males [of pretty much all mammalian species,] have the short end of the stick reproductively, and they always ha…
/r/MensRights21/11/11 01:38 PM
-2

But you're not talking about a financial burden anymore. Adoption, in particular, is generally 100% free for the woman giving birth. It's still a burden, and since it can't be placed on the father, biologically, it can only be compensated for financially. 18 years of servitude is fair. No one is advocating giving men the ability to force a woman to abort. Therefore, the man isn't causing her to go through anything. Either way, she has to go through something that he was 50% responsible for causi…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 10:36 PM
1

Once she's pregnant, her options are giving birth or abortion. Those are both medical procedures. Of those two, medically speaking, abortion is the lesser hassle. But either way, she's not being forced into a medical procedure by the man; she's being forced into a medical procedure by being pregnant. And she couldn't get pregnant without the man doing his part. We're not saying the father shouldn't necessarily pay anything; we're saying the father should not be chained to the woman's unilateral …
/r/MensRights18/11/11 10:15 PM
-2

You can't completely dismiss the "abortion is murder" argument when arguing for abortion and then say it's valid for some people when arguing against analogous rights for men. Either it's murder, in which case it should be illegal, or it's not, and it's a personal choice each woman makes for herself. None of the has to do with the fact that the father's opt-out leaves the mother with 100% of the burden. Getting an abortion or going through an adoption are both burdens. Again, every pro-choice pe…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 09:58 PM
1

What? Nobody is forcing her to not give the child up for adoption. The man doesn't want to be a father, too bad, mom can force her. Nobody can ever force a woman to take on a parental responsibility. The responsibility in this case is shared; 50-50. With fathers opting out, it's 0% for the male, 100% for the female. We can't do anything about the biological differences besides award appropriate compensation based on the degree of suffering. 18 years of forced servitude is not a fair compensation…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 09:47 PM
0

What medical procedure? Indog was specifically talking about adoption, not abortion. You have to give birth in order to have the adoption. She shouldn't have to be forced to go through any extra hassles because the father won't pay. If the father won't pay, that leaves 100% of the burden on the mother; abortion and adoption are all burdens. Last I checked, child support was based on father's income, not the actual cost of raising the kid. So she might be getting more or less than 50% (either ord…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 09:36 PM
0

Except it's not forced. It's her choice. She's forced to make that choice. A woman's choice can't force a man to go through a medical procedure. At most, she can make the man pay for 50%, thus making her responsible for the other 50%. Yes, there would be. If the woman gave birth, wanted to abandon, but the father chose to be a dad, he would take on 100% responsibility. He too would not be able to use another person's resources for his decision. No, the mother would be financially responsible for…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 08:33 PM
1

So what's a fair trade for 9 months of female suffering? Over 200 months of male suffering, in the form of forced servitude, of course! Except you forget that during those 200 months, the woman has the same "forced servitude". I call it consequences; it takes two to tango. And that's the thing about an opt-out. In the details of an implementation, an opt-out could require a fee compensating a woman for the difficulties of pregnancy. Not really. It might cover the finances of the medical procedur…
/r/MensRights18/11/11 02:35 PM
-1

It's true. I also agree that men and women perform certain tasks differently. Think of war: if there's a colony with 1000 men and 1000 women, and all the women go to war, if only 1 comes back, there will only be birth that year. If all the men go to war, and only 1 comes back, there could still be 1000 births that year. Our bodies and minds have different traits and features for different reasons.
/r/MensRights18/11/11 12:44 AM
-3

The mother is only left with 100% if she chooses to keep the child...if a woman wants to go for 0% of responsibility she absolutely can. Not really. She still has procedures and health consequences. The man has no health consequences. Also, many people consider abortion to be killing a life. That's along the lines of saying: "well if she doesn't want to care for a 5 year old, she can just kill it!" She could, but there are emotional and mental consequences. The man does not have to make that dec…
/r/MensRights17/11/11 11:17 PM
-4

If a man opts out, the mother is left with 100% of the Responsibility. If a woman opts out, a man is left with 0% of the responsibility. The only fair case is to allow 0% for all, or 50% for each.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 04:28 PM
-1

If a man opts out, the mother is left with 100% of the Responsibility. If a woman opts out, a man is left with 0% of the responsibility. The only fair case is to allow 0% for all, or 50% for each.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 03:10 PM
1

Again, neither do you have one to show the contrary. On the other hand, I wonder, what sort of statistical evidence do you need to show that the colour blue, is in fact, motherfucking blue. Blue has a definition, a man-made definition. It means that the light emitted falls with in the 440–490nm wavelength. It's really not that hard. You made the claim, not me. You have no evidence, at all, to back it up. You know you're wrong, but to "win" anyway you ask for cold hard statistics for an argument …
/r/MensRights13/11/11 02:14 PM
1

Not really. We assume there's 100 to 500 billion stars in our galaxy, but no one actually counted them one by one. They don't need to, just like they don't need to poll all Americans to accurately determine an election. It's called a statistical sample. That's not what you've done, and you have no documentation to show this. It's what you can call a generally agreed upon speculation Except yours isn't. It might be agreed upon by pesky MRA's from 3rd tier universities, but that's like asking Hitl…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 04:40 AM
2

Not really. We assume there's 100 to 500 billion stars in our galaxy, but no one actually counted them one by one. They don't need to, just like they don't need to poll all Americans to accurately determine an election. It's called a statistical sample. That's not what you've done, and you have no documentation to show this. It's what you can call a generally agreed upon speculation Except yours isn't. It might be agreed upon by pesky MRA's from 3rd tier universities, but that's like asking Hitl…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 04:22 AM
2

Well, I don't think anyone bothered to gather some statistics on that. Right, so you're talking out of your ass. I can't find a source, maybe YOU can find one that proves me wrong then? You made the assertion. It's your responsibility to provde evidence for your statements. Since you can't provide a single shred of evidence, it's safe to say you're just talking out of your ass. Well, if they would, there would probably be some videos of comedians poking fun at that as well, and/or that video of …
/r/MensRights13/11/11 12:46 AM
-1

usually when it's said by mothers who don't work Source? Or are you just making things up to further your anti-women agenda. "being a mother is the toughest job in the world" I'm sure single father's would agree, that being a single parent is the toughest job in the world.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 10:16 PM
3

thing is bullshit That's why it's clear this is anti-women. His categorization is not correct, but it's taken as such on MRA havens. How many mothers actually work externally? Oh, the majority? Okay, good.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 08:56 PM
-18

See? MRAs don't care about mens' rights. You're just anti-women.
/r/MensRights12/11/11 01:41 PM
1

That doesn't say "role play" at all. There's no evidence or mention of that, at all. It's clear that the husband's scenario makes a lot more sense than the wife's Not in the slightest, especially considering that he actually admitted to committing domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:54 PM
1

There's no source for that.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 10:53 PM
1

I came here to post this exact same statement. It will be interesting to see the abuse rates for other children, i.e., not the parents being the abusers.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 10:23 PM
3

Yeah, it says convicted. Since this was caught on tape, it seems quite hard to fake.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 11:45 PM
1

She was. Emotionally.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:50 PM
1

I never said she was excused for her actions. One can be both a perpetrator and a victim; they're not mutually exclusive. I said this in my post.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:06 PM
5

I agree, the mother deserves some punishment, but that doesn't mean she's not a victim herself. The daughter clearly states that the mother was beaten too. I guess cherry-picking which statements to believe in fits the mens' rights dogma.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 03:12 PM
-2

Right. Getting upvoted because people agree with me == "getting your ass kicked". Sad, useless DNA.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 12:16 PM
1

Egad, the undersexed simpleton returns. I haven't checked my incoming messages in a few days and I return to this drivel.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 12:30 AM
0

How many women have rejected you over the years? It must really get to you to see the women you're attracted to constantly run off with more out-going and dominant men.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:49 PM
-1

Awww, maybe you should grow a pair and actually stand up for yourself and women will want you. It's too bad that you're not a dominant male and that no woman will bear your children. I feel bad for you.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:35 PM
0

Aww, poor little useless man with poor DNA. It figures you would suspect a man touched me; that's what men do, statistically speaking.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:16 PM
0

Let me know when a woman wants to have kids with you.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:34 PM
0

Wow. Unfortunately, attempting to pick on someone for being raped is not even your new low. That's not as bad as enjoying the thought of a child being murdered because it enhances your political agenda.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 03:14 PM
-1

Aww, sad little bigot, angry at the world because no woman wants his children. Just a withered away useless set of DNA. Fact: women get away with more crimes than men do. Nope. Men commit more crimes than women. Far more. 4:1 ration. Fact: you're a fucking retard and you hate men. You're a retard from a 3rd tier university and hate women and children, admittedly though, because you're not going to have either.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:04 AM
1

LOOOOOL. Woman and child hating bigot.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:54 AM
1

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. No, you went to a 3rd tier university. There's nothing real about it. It's clear you didn't do anything scientific either. Fact: women get away with more crimes than men do. That's not true.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:44 AM
1

I don't hate men. Your articles are useless and do nothing for the mens' rights movement. Your hysteria actually hurts the movement.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:33 AM
1

You didn't even address the point I made. It's almost as if you were some uneducated idiot from a 3rd tier university... oh, wait, you are. Laws in family court are applied to treat fathers as unfit, and mothers as fit by default. This allows maternal gatekeeping by unfit mothers. This unfit mother, who practiced maternal gatekeeping, killed a child to deny a father from rightful custody. So in other words, the law did what it needed to do, and all it could do, and somehow a mother killing a kid…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:49 AM
0

I'm not a piece of shit. You're the one glorifying over the death of children for political gain.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 04:30 AM
1

So please tell me what set of laws can prevent someone from killing another person? The article is about a human rights violation.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 01:42 AM
1

The fact was that there was no gun found in the car. Source? but since you're supposed to see a gun before a shooting attack is assumed to be going on No, if someone threatens you, and then acts to reach for a gun or a weapon, you can defend yourself. so she used disproportionate force to stop the attack, No, a knife vs. a gun is disproportionate in the guns favor. If anything, she didn't use enough force.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:56 PM
0

It's meaningless. My comment is accurate and it shows the positive reception.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 09:13 PM
1

So further more proving that you're a liar. I win on ALL counts. You didn't even bring up a relevant point in this entire thread. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I win. Most killers in Canada are male, with men accounting for about 9 in 10 accused in homicides, according to Statistics Canada; women are about three times more likely to be victims of spousal homicide. In 2009, 49 women and 15 men were killed by a current or former spouse (excluding same-sex partners.) “If the jury found that she acted in se…
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:59 PM
0

Congratulations. My comments got upvoted. Woohoo. You're not very well educated, are you?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:30 PM
2

Pretty much any crime with a victim is a violation of someones rights. The children lost their lives. This has nothing to do with mens' rights because it's not legal bias; there's no set of new laws that could prevent this.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 12:15 PM
4

Good. Can't defeat the argument, so this is what you resort to. Bigot.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 05:02 AM
4

No, it doesn't. Simply showing that a woman committed a crime against her children has nothing to do with mens' rights. That's like showing an article of a white guy killing his wife on a forum for African American rights.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 04:45 AM
4

The article has nothing to do with mens' rights.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 03:35 AM
4

Yeah, this article is garbage. I'm not sure what this has to do with mens' rights. This is just a woman committing a crime. I love it when people publicize and gloat about horrendous crimes against children for political gain. /s
/r/MensRights28/10/11 02:16 AM
2

It doesn't? No, it doesn't. Here's what you said: No, you have the right to use enough force to end the attack. Killing a person will end the attack. Your statement does not quantify an upper bound; it quantifies a lower bound. If I kill the person, that's enough force to stop the attack. Because you don't know either, so it's an absurd argument to make. This woman was no Jaycee Lee Dugard. Jaycee Lee Dugard is not the new limit for when a woman can defend herself. A woman, any person, can defen…
/r/MensRights28/10/11 01:01 AM
1

I think you need to check the definition of "factually correct." That's just one example of you being completely wrong and instead of admitting it like an adult and moving on, attack me for it like I made a mistake, or call me a liar. Yup, I think we're done here. We've been done the entire time. You haven't brought up any relevant points into the entire conversation. Here's a summary of your points: 1) It's "duty to retreat", not "right to retreat" 2) You can only kill an attacker if they're ha…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 10:44 PM
1

Please show me where I said that. If you live in a state with robust "Castle laws," you are 100% within your rights to assume anyone who breaks into your house means to do you and/or your family harm. That's what you said, because you never specified or qualified "harm". How do you prove this harm? Again, she had him convicted for assaulting her three times. This was not the first time she had "defended herself." Just because she failed to have the courage to do it once before does not mean she …
/r/MensRights27/10/11 10:27 PM
1

No, friend, I'm not the one tossing around ad hominems like they're going out of style. I don't think you realize what ad-hominem means. What I've said is factually correct. You have been hysterically, and, I must admit, quite hilariously trying to call me a liar. So who lost the argument? You did, since you argued against my scenario, lied in the process, and then proceeded to prove my exact scenario correct.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 10:02 PM
2

It's not meant for hangnails. It does not specify the extent of the injury, especially because you have no idea how injured you're going to be when someone's attacking you. No, you have the right to use enough force to end the attack. If someone sucker punches me, I don't have a right to just pull out a gun and shoot him. 1) That's not what the law says at all. 2) If he just punches you once, then no you can't kill him, obviously. If he keeps punching you, you definitely can. So you are a qualif…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:50 PM
0

You said "right to retreat." I don't know what the fuck that means or to whom it applies. You know exactly what it means. You lost the argument, so you're being pedantic over a tiny little slip-up in my verbiage. I am talking about duty of retreat.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 09:28 PM
1

That depends on your state/country. If you live in a state with robust "Castle laws," you are 100% within your rights to assume anyone who breaks into your house means to do you and/or your family harm. List one state in the US or Canada where such a law exists, that says you can kill anyone on your property. Sure, but we're talking about a woman who has had no problem taking this guy to the police in the past. He's been convicted of assaulting her three times now. But even if he said that, it's…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 08:45 PM
1

It's actually "duty to retreat", and it varies by state. Right, exactly what I said. Good job at contributing nothing to the conversation.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 06:05 PM
2

gain, self defense is supposed to be for immediate, imminent threats on your life. Not threats of beating. That's false, and a blatant lie. Even in liberal California: It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would b…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:54 PM
1

Not lethal self-defense. Statutes vary by state. California, my state, has some of the most specific. This is from a government document on firearms, but it covers all forms of deadly force in self defense: Great. Two problems. 1) She didn't use a firearm 2) Being beaten is life-threatening. That's what you fail to understand. When a person threatens to beat you, and then proceeds to beat you, you have no idea when that person plans to stop. Right from your own citation: It is lawful for a perso…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 05:44 PM
-3

and she confessed to stabbing him Of course, she confessed to stabbing him - as an act of self defense. By Canadian law this woman should have been charged with 1st degree murder She was charged with murder. You have no proof she brought the knife to stab him. How do you know the knife wasn't already in the car to begin with? After I moved, I left my old kitchenware in the car because I was too lazy to bring it in -- didn't need it, the roommate had better stuff.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 02:45 AM
-4

Well, I firstly agree that it's your house, and you should be able to defend it. The justification here, however, is life over property. Simply being in your house is not necessarily threatening; it's a violation of your privacy, and property rights, certainly, but it's not clear how it's a threat to your health or life. If somebody has beats you regularly, told you if you leave they'll beat you or kill you, and then tells you that they're going to beat you again when you get home, that's a very…
/r/MensRights27/10/11 12:49 AM
-5

It's fucked up to defend yourself? Man, you guys will move the goal post any which way possible, as long as it justifies vilifying a woman.
/r/MensRights27/10/11 12:17 AM
-3

It's not murder if it's self defense. This is an act of self defense from beatings, imprisonment, and threats. Killing someone is not the same thing as murder. Most definitely, if someone is assaulting me, I'm defending myself with whatever weapon I have, and the law allows for it, especially if I'm on my own property.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 11:10 PM
-5

It is true, and it is the legal standard. It may vary slightly by each state, but just take a look at the McD's cashier [who was male] being assaulted by two females. "Oh its different," you'll say. How is he to know they don't have guns, tasers, knives, pepper spray when they illegally trespass behind the counter and assault him? I don't have the details of the case, but if he's being physically assaulted by multiple people, he has every right to defend himself. If he was convicted, I would mos…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 09:57 PM
-2

The legal standard is that self defense only stands when you are currently being attacked. That's not true. Self defense stands when you have a reasonable expectation that you will be harmed or injured by the other person. If the attacker stops, or is incapacitated, or even retreats... you do not have to right to turn around and attack them. That's assuming that you are in the mental state to determine the person's actions are benign at that point. If someone has beaten you before, and they tell…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 09:07 PM
-10

Certainly. I'm not an irrational idiot with a low quality of education like you are. You don't care about equality; that much is clear. You just care about asserting men > women.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:32 PM
-15

Innocent until proven guilty, still important. He wasn't on trial, so it's not important at all. The prosecution couldn't establish that she didn't act out of self-defense. That's what's important. She was on trial, so if you don't want to look like a hypocrite, you would have to assume innocent until proven guilty for her as well. Duh... duh... duh... derppy duh. You aren't interested in debate I see. Begging the question at all levels. No, your statement was stupid, and you realize it now. "Wh…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:22 PM
-8

Goldkind is the killer's lawyer. Her lawyer says he was not a model citizen. That is all the proof of his abuse they have? No, that's all the article says. The court case constitutes much more than a layman news opinion article. You do know that, right? And so what, if he always beat her. He never used a weapon. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Man, you retards will go to any length to put down a woman. Yeah, I guess beating and kicking someone isn't lethal or harmful because no weapon was used. What's more da…
/r/MensRights26/10/11 08:02 PM
-20

Fuck, how do you know he did? How do you know he didn't? Did you actually see the court or read the transcripts? Why do you assume that he didn't beat her up regularly when the prosecution couldn't debunk that claim? Shouldn't the assumption be that he never beat her It was, that's why she was tried for murder and not let off the hook immediately for self-defense. Duh. Seems kind of hard to kick someone's ass in the back seat while driving. That doesn't mean she wasn't threatened or beaten many …
/r/MensRights26/10/11 07:52 PM
-10

Is there any evidence of that? Is there evidence that he beat her regularly? Well from what we know of the article, there is: "Some legal commentators have speculated evidence of Gillespie’s unsympathetic character may have played a role in the verdict. “No doubt, Mr. Gillespie was not a model citizen,” Goldkind said, nodding. But the jury was an intelligent group and received “a comprehensive charge from the judge, and heard all the evidence unlike some members of the public who heard bits and …
/r/MensRights26/10/11 06:48 PM
-28

How do you know? That's like saying if someone knocks me out and throws me in a car, they don't pose an immediate threat to me because they're driving me to a river where they're going to drown me. You're not too smart, are you?
/r/MensRights26/10/11 06:38 PM
-12

That doesn't address the question, nor does it make any sense.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 05:49 PM
-28

Do they pose a physical threat to you immediately?
/r/MensRights26/10/11 05:27 PM
-10

Basically, she wasn't in a normal mental state because he had been beating her for years. So basically, if he had threatened to beat her, and he has beat her in the passed, she acted in self-defense. Move along, nothing to see here.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 03:37 PM
17

Basically, she wasn't in a normal mental state because he had been beating her for years. So basically, if he had threatened to beat her, and he has beat her in the passed, she acted in self-defense. Move along, nothing to see here.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 03:23 PM
-1

No they don't.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 01:59 AM
-1

So let me get this straight, if a man consents to sex he consented to fatherhood and has no choices after said point. If a woman has sex and gets pregnant she can relinquish all of her responsibility by aborting it, give it away after it was born with no repercussions, or she can keep it. So let me get this straight. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he should be able to relinquish all responsibility for his actions and leave the woman with the sole responsibility of raising the child? If the woma…
/r/MensRights25/10/11 04:36 PM
0

Most crime is committed by black people. Except that's false.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 12:57 PM
-14

Most of the violent abuse is done by men though.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 04:41 AM
-25

Police report wise, men beat woman more. Excuse and bullshit wise, it's about equal. Any man who's weak enough to get pushed around by a woman deserves it.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 03:34 AM
0

You're uneducated.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 03:03 AM
0

You didn't make any point, though. These statistics are not pulled out of anyones ass. It's just the way it is. This is why people from 3rd tier universities rarely make it anywhere.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 11:49 PM
0

No, they weren't made. Simply stating "THIS IS MY DEFINITION OF FAIR. EVEN IF IT REALLY ISN'T FAIR, IT'S FAIR BECAUSE MAN!". using made up numbers. They're not made up, at all. A woman has no way to force a man to pay 100%, but with what you want, a man has a way to force a woman to pay 100%.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 11:09 PM
0

No arguments were really made on your part. You can't defeat simple biology and simple economics.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 07:49 PM
0

Unfortunately for your argument, game theory rarely applies to real life, because percentages are typically puled from anuses. Wrong on all accounts. It's actually funny, because you're the one getting angry. You have no argument biologically, economically, or legally. I wish I lived in your dreamworld where complex problems can be solved with ad hominems and made-up numbers. But I don't. Sure, some laws need to be fixed so they're more fair for the man while he's paying. Not many disagree with …
/r/MensRights23/10/11 03:30 AM
0

No they're not, not at all. You're just a piss-poor reasoner from a 3rd tier university who relies on emotion not logic. In order for the man to abort and the woman have 0% responsibility, the woman must abort. If allowing a man to abort, the woman will automatically have an unfair burden. Since there's no way for a man to pay 100%, there should be no male action to allow him to pay 0%. Based on simple game theory, under no circumstances should the male be allowed to abort, if fairness is to be …
/r/MensRights23/10/11 02:05 AM
0

Well the rest of you aren't formulating your arguments well. And I disagree that a man should be able to opt out at anytime. If you argued a certain window should be acceptable, I disagree, but think it's a valid argument. It's at least logical.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 10:21 PM
0

A woman can only abort during a small window. If you were to argue that during that window, if a man wants to alleviate himself, and the woman still has the chance to an abortion, I could buy that argument.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 05:02 PM
1

Not all woman believe in killing a human to save money. The man chose that burden when took on the risk of having a child. Since the act of having a child is not equal on the biological level, it's impossible and irrational to be equal on the legal level. Man opts out --> woman 100% Woman opts out --> Man 0%. If the man opts out, the only way she can get 0% is if she opts out; the other fair scenarios only depend on the action of one individual, not two.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 03:11 PM
-1

You're saying that there isn't a 3rd person in the equation after the child is born?
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:21 AM
0

I agree and unfortunately, it's not an easy situation to make "fair" to all; the mother, father, and the kid. Unfortunately, someone gets the shaft. I honestly don't know how I feel about any of it. Personally, I'm against abortion (I'm an atheist believe it or not). I really don't know.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 01:10 AM
-1

Who is talking about abortion? That's your own "red herring". I'm talking about after a child is born a mother can give that child up for adoption and no longer have to raise it or pay for it. There's now a 3rd person in the equation: the child. So basically, the father's absence now drastically affects two lives, one of them completely innocent: the child. If women have the option to legally abandon their child and not be responsible for it in any way whatsoever, so should men. That affects a 3…
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:59 AM
0

What if she has to get an abortion because she cannot afford the child? Making hard decisions is part of being an adult. What about it? Your second paragraph is completely irrelevant because we're discussing financial abortions that take place before birth. You're not even making sense.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:49 AM
1

What does biology have to do with anything after the child is born? Birth has already happened, but the mother can walk away from the child with no repercussions while the father can not. Once the child is born biology no longer has anything to do with this scenario. A mother can't abort her child after the child's born. Biology has everything to do with it. There are 3 lives to consider after the child is born: the mother, father, and the child.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:20 AM
0

Not really. She still has to get an abortion. Perhaps she doesn't believe in abortion. Perhaps she wants the kid because the guy was married to her and wanted to have a kid but only to change his mind last second? What if the man opts out when the baby is born and she can no longer abort? She's stuck with 100%. The child is now stuck with that decision, too, financially, with no fault of the child's own.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:08 AM
0

If the man opts out, he leaves the woman with 100% of the obligation. If the woman opts out, she leaves the man with 0% of the obligation. If she doesn't opt out, she leaves the man with 50% of the financial obligation - nothing else. So based on fairness, since a woman can't leave a man with 100% of the burden, it's not fair that the man should leave the woman with 100% of the burden. Women don't have all of the choices. The man doesn't have to have sex with that woman. The man can pay financia…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:43 PM
-1

If the man opts out, he leaves the woman with 100% of the obligation. If the woman opts out, she leaves the man with 0% of the obligation. If she doesn't opt out, she leaves the man with 50% of the financial obligation - nothing else. So based on fairness, since a woman can't leave a man with 100% of the burden, it's not fair that the man should leave the woman with 100% of the burden.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:28 PM
2

No you can't. You can't legislate DNA. The man is the biological father, regardless. Giving the man a right to opt out at anytime completely removes all burden from the man, but not the woman. If the woman can opt out, neither the man nor the woman have the burden, so the collective burden is now 0. So in reality, if a man opts out, there's still 50% burden. If the woman opts out, there's 0% burden.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:15 PM
-2

Biology doesn't force you to cough up Child Support... So? Biology doesn't make you cough up apples, therefor, nobody should buy apples. Your logic is completely idiotic. Giving the man a right to opt out at anytime completely removes all burden from the man, but not the woman. If the woman can opt out, neither the man nor the woman have the burden, so the collective burden is now 0. So in reality, if a man opts out, there's still 50% burden. If the woman opts out, there's 0% burden.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 10:01 PM
1

Well, men know the law. If you don't like the legal consequences of your voluntary actions, then don't perform said voluntary action. Giving the man a right to opt out at anytime completely removes all burden from the man, but not the woman. If the woman can opt out, neither the man nor the woman have the burden, so the collective burden is now 0. So in reality, if a man opts out, there's still 50% burden. If the woman opts out, there's 0% burden.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:51 PM
-1

She can't remove all responsibilities. She still has a responsibility to get an abortion, which presents its own costs and associated risks. Giving the man a right to opt out at anytime completely removes all burden from the man, but not the woman. If the woman can opt out, neither the man nor the woman have the burden, so the collective burden is now 0. So in reality, if a man opts out, there's still 50% burden. If the woman opts out, there's 0% burden.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:39 PM
1

So basically, you reject Nobel Prize winning research because...... it goes against your dogma?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:26 PM
-1

Sex most definitely is a reproductive act. It does not follow from that statement that we have to make sexual relations even more unequal by forcing men to accept other individual's decisions The woman couldn't have gotten pregnant without the man. Giving the man a right to opt out at anytime completely removes all burden from the man, but not the woman. If the woman can opt out, neither the man nor the woman have the burden, so the collective burden is now 0. So in reality, if a man opts out, t…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:15 PM
0

I fail to see how equal rights can be applied to men without destroying a woman's rights herself. Suppose the woman gets pregnant, and the father agrees that he wants to be a part of the child's life. The woman instead of aborting, has the child, and then the father decides to leave. The woman can no longer abort the child at this point. At what point can the man end his obligation? Before the birth? Assuming that the father is identifiable before that time. Should all men and women have to sign…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:04 PM
-2

I'm not talking about anything biological, I'm talking about the choice men and women can make after the child is born, thus removing biology from the equation. No, biology is not removed from the equation, at all. 50% of the child's DNA comes from the father - forever. Why is it a woman can legally opt out of being a parent and all the financial obligations once the child is born, but a man can not similarly opt out of it at any point, either before or after the child is born? Biologically spea…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:45 PM
-3

Should he be forced to be a father? Yes. He participated in the act that produced the consequence. The child could have not been produced without his knowing involvement. Every action we make has associated risks.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:21 PM
-1

Why does it matter that only women can become pregnant? How does that actually change things? I already told you how it changes things. If you want to say it doesn't change things, you have to provide a proof as to why it doesn't change things. Simply restating "it doesn't change things!" is invalid, like the rest of your argument. How does that mean that we should force men to be financially liable for babies once they are born? If men are not financially liable, then what consequences are ther…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:08 PM
-4

We are not talking about a men's rights to get an abortion. We are talking about a men's rights to get FINANCIAL and LEGAL abortion. Know the difference. If a man willing performs an action, he has to accept responsibility for any consequences that arise from that action. then similarly if a man does not want a child but cannot convince the woman to abort, then the man should be should have the right to relinquish ALL parental rights and responsibilities (no visitation, no child support, no cont…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:07 PM
-2

Saying sex is only I reproduce is incredibly silly. Biologically? Yes. In reality? Absolutely not. That is the biological purpose of sex. Humans have sex for pleasure. If sex weren't pleasurable, people wouldn't want to do it, thus, it wouldn't be beneficial from an evolution standpoint as beings wouldn't have the drive to reproduce. What if a man wanted to have the child, but the woman wants to abort? Should the man be able to force the woman through pregnancy?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:56 PM
-1

I see you only believe in the mantra of "Equality" when it suits you. Biology isn't equal. I don't know how else to spell it for you. This is a non-argument, the very same posited by anti-abortionists. Not really. Getting an abortion still poses a risk and costs to the female, anyways. Either way, there's a cost and risk the woman has to deal with. No, he's not. By this logic, abortion should not be legal as women are agreeing to risks and responsibilities-- but once again you believe in rights …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:41 PM
-3

Only in your world of warped Orwellian feminist jurisprudence where men do not have equal rights. In a world with real equal protection under the law, this would never be the case and should not be the case. This makes no sense. This is biology, not politics. If a woman wants to have an abortion, but a man wants the child, should the man have the right to tell the woman not to have an abortion? A woman can choose to have sex or not. If she doesn't want the risks associated with sex, she doesn't …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:30 PM
-8

All independent scenarios that are just red-herrings because you can't actually refute the assertion, because it's a fact. What if a man wanted to have the child, but the woman wants to abort? Should the man be able to force the woman through pregnancy? There is no equality in human reproduction.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:42 PM
-2

It matters because the notion that "it should be equal" doesn't apply because biology is inherently unequal. A man will never have the physical costs of getting pregnant, having an abortion, delivering a baby, etc. When a man has sex with a woman, he is agreeing to the associated risks involved. What if a man wanted to have the child, but the woman wants to abort? Should the man be able to force the woman through pregnancy? There is no equality in human reproduction.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:31 PM
-5

Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. Consent to sex is consent to the risks associated with sex, a reproductive act. Financial obligation for a child a man never wanted to have is forced labor and therefore a violation of his bodily autonomy, not to mention indentured servitude. A man can choose to have sex or not. If he doesn't want this risks associated with sex, he doesn't have to have it. What if a man wanted to have the child, but the woman wants to abort? Should the man be able to …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:21 PM
-2

So your argument boils down to: "women can become pregnant, men cannot." You keep repeating that, but you do not explain why it matters. The reason it matters is because the idea is that things should be "equal", but reproduction is inherently not equal. There is no way, at all, to ever make it equal, unless men can become pregnant in the way women can. Any action you take, there is an associated risk and opportunity cost involved. When a man has sex with a woman, the risk is that a woman can ge…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:10 PM
-3

A man can't get pregnant.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 04:00 PM
-3

Men don't shoulder all of the responsibility. A woman still has to pay, with her time, with her money, etc, just as a man does. A man can't even get pregnant to begin with, so even at the biological level, men don't shoulder all of the responsibilities. In reality, a man only has a financial obligation.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:50 PM
1

My solution is to make the risks equal to both sexes, under the law. I'm sorry, but how would it make any difference if men could get pregnant? That's the only way to make the risk associated with reproductive acts equal. You can't legislate male pregnancy, ever, since men can't get pregnant. You can legislate female pregnancy, though, in theory. They do in China.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:40 PM
-6

Equality under law would require both parties to have an equal say in whether or not they want to be parents in the event of pregnancy. Except the act of reproduction isn't equal. Men can't get pregnant.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:28 PM
-3

Except when it's not, which is usually. No, it's always about reproduction. Reproduction is something every species takes part in. Some do it differently than others. There is no other purpose for reproduction other than to reproduce. The probability of impregnation accepted when having sex with a contraceptive measure, even if that measure is withdrawal or estimation of an infertile period, is utterly incomparable to the risk of driving under the influence. The odds are too dissimilar. I disagr…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:17 PM
-3

The justification is that biologically, the act of reproduction isn't equal. Women can get pregnant, men can't. Until you figure out how to get men pregnant, or there's a huge evolutionary jump, the act of reproduction will never be equal.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:07 PM
0

No, my solution is understand the risks involved with having sex. A male can get a vasectomy if he chooses, and have it reversed later. Who knows what the future will bring; maybe there will be a pill for a man to take, just as there is for a woman. Unfortunately, biology isn't equal. Men can't get pregnant. Until that happens, the whole reproductive process will never be equal.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 02:57 PM
-6

The act of being pregnant and delivering a child is not biologically equal. Until men can get pregnant, they have no ground. You're talking about rape, which is a completely separate issue, and is not what we're discussing. That's called a red-herring. When a man has sex with a woman, that's the risk he takes. If this risk is too great, then don't have sex. Otherwise, those are the conditions you're agreeing too. If she gets pregnant, you have to accept any choice she makes.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 01:10 PM
-13

No, abortions are one option for the woman. That's one of the choices she can make. When a man has sex with a woman, that's the risk he takes. If this risk is too great, then don't have sex. Otherwise, those are the conditions you're agreeing too. If she gets pregnant, you have to accept any choice she makes.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:59 PM
-13

If the only way a man can be sure not to become indentured is to be abstinent, then our society is broken. No it's not. It's not broken at all. We should be working towards giving men similar rights to women. Can men get pregnant and deliver a baby? Until you fix biology, you can never make it equal: biologically, it's not equal. When a man has sex with a woman, that's the risk he takes. If this risk is too great, then don't have sex. Otherwise, those are the conditions you're agreeing too. If s…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:49 PM
-9

Right, if she doesn't want to get pregnant, there are many things she can do. When a man has sex with a woman, that's the risk he takes. If this risk is too great, then don't have sex. Otherwise, those are the conditions you're agreeing too. If she gets pregnant, you have to accept any choice she makes.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:38 PM
-4

Drinking and driving is not inherently innocuous. Neither is sex. The whole purpose of sex is to reproduce. A better analogy is crossing a street to get to a party (a voluntary action like sex). Both drinking and driving are voluntary. Your argument makes no sense. A man can't get pregnant. There is no possible way for a man to get pregnant. You can take every precaution to do it safely, but choosing to cross a street doesn't mean you're the responsible party for having been hit by a car because…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:28 PM
-10

Pregnancy and child birth are not equal, biologically. When a man has sex with a woman, that's the risk he takes. If this risk is too great, then don't have sex. Otherwise, those are the conditions you're agreeing too. If she gets pregnant, you have to accept any choice she makes.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 12:17 PM
-23

Yeah, except that's not what we're talking about. Nice try with the red herring though.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:42 AM
-24

A child is one potential consequence of sex. That's like saying "choosing to drink and drive is not choosing to get into an accident". It's a chosen action and a potential consequence. When two people have sex, there are risks involved and they're choosing that the benefits out weigh the risks.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:31 AM
-11

Certainly, I agree, those cases of deception and fraud should be treated differently. Hard to prove, though.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:20 AM
-25

Well, it's an implicit contract. When you sleep with a woman, you're taking on the risk of her getting pregnant and then keeping or getting rid of it. Men have the choice to not sleep with that woman.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 05:04 AM
1

Ha, Syracuse.. my hometown.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 04:24 AM
-1

You lost so bad.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 03:06 AM
0

I don't think you know what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 05:39 AM
-2

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You're just a sad lonely guy who never got any dates when he was younger; the few dates you did get, the woman cheated on you. That much is evident. At any rate, it's clear you can't defend your points, and there is no violation to human rights what so ever.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:19 AM
2

Actually, things like that used to happen on occasion at several restaurants I worked at when I was younger. Also, used tampons and pads would just be thrown on the floor of the bathroom. So by your logic, women on their periods should be banned from using the unisex bathroom. Perhaps, however, I've never heard of this happening outside of anti-women forums like this. I routinely see urine on a sit-down toilet seat. It's almost a guarantee. So by your logic, women on their periods should be bann…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:46 AM
-2

So you realize that your stance is retarded, so instead of just admitting this, you claim I'm someone you remember. Good job.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:45 AM
1

Just because a Human Rights infringement lines up with your personal tastes, does not make it less a Human Rights infringement. Look at what you are advocating for fuck's sake! You're saying an entity should be allowed to dictate to you the manner in which you relieve yourself. Literally, a fucking OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED PROCEDURE for taking a piss! Is it not a person's private property? If I don't want people to wear shoes on my carpet, so I don't have to clean them up, why shouldn't I be allowe…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:03 AM
2

They're not refusing facilities to anyone. You can use the toilet sitting, or you can use another toilet. That's like saying "you can't shit in the urinal?!!????? YOU'RE DENYING ME MY BATHROOM RIGHTS!!!" As for it's offensiveness, well, this thing has been tried as National Policy initiative in Sweden (I believe - maybe Norway), so it's hardly as innocuous as you claim. So? I see nothing wrong with it. Other people (men who pee sitting for health reasons, or who have to take a shit) have to clea…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:52 AM
2

Is it common for women on their periods to leave a mess so that other patrons in the restaurant have to clean up the girls blood before using the toilet? No? I didn't think so. Men can still go to the bathroom and they can still pee standing up. This just reserves a few toilets so men and women can go to the bathroom without having to clean urine off of a seat. Most men shit sitting down, but I don't know about you.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:37 AM
3

You don't need to stand and you don't need to use a unisex toilet. Why should other patrons (male and female) have to deal with your urine? It's not a law, it's a business setting its own rules. Don't like it; don't go there.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:26 AM
-1

I edited this almost immediately to say domestic violence and child abuse. It doesn't specify violence either. It states abuse. No....my argument is women are are just as likely to commit violence towards a partner, and more likley to commit violence and neglect (ie not feeding them, not getting them medical attention) towards a child. No. The OPs study doesn't discuss violent abuse solely. It includes emotional and verbal. Men do the violent abuse. Not in domestic situations, sorry the statisti…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:34 PM
-3

This needs to end. Kids need their dads as much as they need their moms. I don't disagree with this, however, your quotation proved my point: women have their children more, thus, just by simple probabilities, will have higher numbers.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 08:24 PM
-1

Therefore, unless you're going to argue that some people abuse just because, more men must have been abused in order for more men to have become abusers. You really have no idea how statistics work at all, do you? Therefore, unless you're going to argue that some people abuse just because, more men must have been abused in order for more men to have become abusers. No, that's not true at all. In order to establish this assertion, you'd have to show that 100% of abusers were once abused. If there…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 07:57 PM
-3

Since you aren't willing to admit that women and men are both as capable of being violent, I think we should look closer at the study you site. They're not. The fact is, men commit violent crimes is over 2:1, and I quote: As of 2008, statistics report as that of 16,277 murders, 10,568 were committed by males, 1,176 were by female, and 4,533 were committed in which the offenders sex was unknown. study you site. You don't even know what study I'm citing. There are several there on the link. Stop c…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 07:19 PM
-2

How is it possible that more female children are abused yet more males abuse yet abused children are the ones who go on to abuse? I don't think this makes sense. Can you reword it so it's some-what proper English so it's more grammatically correct and less ambiguous? Doesn't that heavily imply that every male abuser was once an abused child himself? And if there are more male abusers, by definition, there are more abused males? Not sure how you can deduce this.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 06:54 PM
-2

That report says no such thing, yet you are attempting to draw that conclusion. Yes, it does. It's all in there. You are comparing abuse by biological parents by (ironiclly cherry picking) adding in absue by non biological parents, family members or strangers. The study in the OP does not differentiate between adopted mothers and fathers vs. biological either. It considers the person who is the primary provider, just as mine does. Women are far more likely to be the sole primary provider than me…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 06:01 PM
-5

But female children are more likely to be abused. Stop cherry picking. According to the national child abuse center: About 30% of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children, continuing the horrible cycle of abuse. 14% of all men in prison in the USA were abused as children. 36% of all women in prison were abused as children. Also, there are more single women with children than there are single men with children; there are more women living with children than there are men.…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 02:05 PM
-9

Good. Men commit more violent crimes than women, by far. Don't learn your lesson? Raise the punishment. Testosterone suppressing pills are definitely in order.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 01:23 AM
-5

'bout time. It's too easy on Reddit.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 10:45 PM
-29

No, what they said is true. Women have completely surpassed men in almost every area: legislatively, academically, morally, and financially. Men were always meant for dumb brute jobs. You're just realizing this now, that's the problem.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 08:35 PM
1

Great, can't defeat my arguments, so you resort to these tactics. Good job, fascist.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:26 PM
2

1) Already posted. 2) This doesn't yield much. Why were these men tested? Is it because they had a reason to suspect the woman was sleeping around? Were the tests conducted at random? Only random testing over a large sample will yield any useful results.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 01:07 AM
1

No, I'm not. But nice try at distortion. Yes, you are. That's exactly what your logic produces: we need to completely remove all civil liberties to ensure men are never dicked over. I'm saying "You want your/his name on the Birth Certificate? Prove he's the father via DNA testing". You're the asshole saying that 'agreement' constitutes fact, not me. So if he doesn't want his name on the birth certificate, the father can just refuse to get the test and that's it, he's completely dissolved of any …
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:30 AM
1

It equates EXACTLY...unless you contend that there is no such thing as a woman who lies to a man about parentage? Perhaps you believe that man 'deserves it' because he's 'so stupid'? You're basically saying that unless we put cameras in each person's home to make sure no woman lies about being raped, we're for women lying about men being raped. This is no different than "if you don't want us to go into Iraq, you want the terrorists to win!" Good job. Or maybe you think the Government should just…
/r/MensRights25/09/11 01:57 PM
1

You're the guy assuming the Government is going to nefariously steal your data...not me. I guess if you consider ACLU lawsuits as nefarious... then again, you did go to a 3rd tier university, not me. So you see nothing wrong with possibly up to 60% That's not true. There is no credible evidence to support that notion, at all. It's so clear that you came from a 3rd tier university, because you can't even interpret a simple non-scientific study correctly. And I simply said if the man wants to get …
/r/MensRights25/09/11 04:36 AM
1

What tin-foil hat argument? The ACLU is already suing the federal government over a DNA database. Are you denying this? And no, your logic is what's retarded: we should remove peoples rights to keep them safe. It logically follows, that with this logic, all rights should be removed from all people to keep everything honest and safe. This is exactly what you're logic produces. "We need your DNA because people lie and we're here to protect you!"
/r/MensRights24/09/11 03:50 AM
1

Because 'agreement' does not constitute fact, facts do. If the Government wants to fulfil it's obligation to accurately keep records, then it must begin to use the technology available to ensure factual correctness. How you and your wife feel about it is utterly irrelevant. This is stupid. Why not just put cameras in everyone's house and on every street corner, and on every car. Why not mandate that all civilians wear cameras and recorders? This why, nobody would ever be able to dispute any fact…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 04:22 PM
1

Why should a man have to go through a medical procedure to claim that he's the father of the kid when both parents are in agreement? Don't want your name on the birth certificate? Prove you're not the father.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 08:24 PM
1

Being forced to undergo a medical procedure, instead of having the option to undergo a medical procedure, is an advancement of mens' rights? That's the dumbest, and most counter-intuitive, logic I've ever seen. 3rd tier university, right?
/r/MensRights21/09/11 11:45 AM
0

You lost so bad, it's not even funny. LOL @ finding out your "father" isn't your real father will lead to discovery of colon cancer. LOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:49 PM
1

This doesn't make any sense. You're defending the lack of paternal assurance for men...all men...based on the possibility the government might make up a database? That's a hell of a strawman. Men should be able to get a paternal test at anytime; I've already said this. That's a voluntary procedure. Two, it's not "on the possibility"; the simple destruction of mens' rights should be enough to stop this. They could, in theory, put cameras in every person's home (hell, even equip every person with …
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:02 PM
0

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL SO you can't actually defend your logic, at all (saying a failed paternity test == determining genetic diseases), so you resort to an insult about my mom? LOOOOOOOOL. pool_db, you are really really bad at this. You aren't for mens' rights. The entire movement isn't about mens' rights. It's simply about asserting that women == evil whores. In fact, you are even willing to destroy mens' rights just on the outside chance that something will prove your assertion true.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:45 AM
1

Some streets have cameras (which I oppose), but without facial recognition on such a massive scale, or RFID's in our bodies, it's completely useless as to identifying random people on the street. You can choose to go down those streets or avoid them. You can choose to use credit cards or not. You don't have to. You are fighting a losing battle here. Not really. The ACLU is doing well here. The problem is, people like you, thinks that there must be a solution to every problem, but are only short-…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 08:05 PM
1

There's no tin-foil hat conspiracy going on here, unless you consider the ACLU lawsuit against the federal government to be a farce.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:02 PM
1

That's called a red-herring. Circumcision, whether I agree or disagree, has nothing to do with a father giving up his genetic information.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:50 PM
1

See, this is where you're wrong. Hospitals need some consent to perform medical procedures on people. You can deny treatment and even have your child in an out of hospital birth. There's opt-in and opt-out. What you're describing is mandatory.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:36 PM
0

For the rest of the population on planet Earth, it's best to have a complete and accurate family history in order to correctly treat and prevent a multitude of diseases. See, this is how I know I'm arguing with a bunch of people from 3rd tier universities: complete lack of rational thinking. Suppose that my mother got pregnant by someone other than my believed father. The paternity test turns up that this man is really not my father. All I know at this point is that whatever hereditary diseases …
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:23 PM
0

Willingly. Those are willing examinations, not required examinations. And urine tests are run by private companies. You'll never be able to actually prevent the gov't from knowing it. This is wrong and stupid. We'll eventually never be able to prevent the government from holding us indefinitely without any charges brought against us. Oh wait, Gitmo.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 06:12 PM
1

I can choose not to use Google and use something like duckduckgo or a proxy. If I don't like the Internet, I can chose to not use it. No, the benefits of paternity tests are not much more important than privacy. There are absolutely no benefits to society over paternity tests; it only affects less than .2% of the worlds population. Sure, it might benefit individual couples here and there, but that's it. We could make everyone safe by keeping everyone in their homes and shipping them 3 square mea…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:58 PM
1

Abandonment is a crime, so during the investigation of a crime, the police can get warrants to test for things like that. Yes, it's better to let a few men go "free" than to steal the rights of every man out there. You're basically arguing against the right to privacy vs. getting a warrant to search your house. You're saying you shouldn't have a right to privacy in your home because some police might be able to get a warrant and search for it later. Good job, Johnny. It's pretty clear that this …
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:47 PM
0

That sucks. I mean we could make everyone safer if we just keep everyone in their homes (government provided) and feed them the exact amount of food they need, and keeping them under close eye with a camera just to make sure no woman is raped, and that no woman is lying about said rape. Great idea, Johnny.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:35 PM
1

I picture you as a person from a 3rd tier university who is so stupid, that he doesn't realize that his fight for mens' "rights" is actually going to lead him to fight for the complete destruction of mens' rights.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:12 PM
-2

A medical procedure? There is no medical procedure unless you believe swabbing a cheek for some cell samples is a medical procedure. Um, yes, it's a medical procedure, just like taking your temperature is. Are you a complete idiot? By the way, hospitals already do a battery of tests during pregnancies, many of which are based on using those same genetic materials that can be used to acquire a DNA profile anyway. Not mandatory tests on the male, or the mother for that matter.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 04:01 PM
1

They don't take Mom's word for it, and they take great pains to ensure her actual child is who she goes home with. So? None of that is mandatory. It's not mandatory to give birth in a hospital. They're called out of hospital births. What about the wife expressing 'shock and concern' that he would doubt her? This has nothing to do with anything. MANDATORY paternity testing is the only way to ensure men are not duped. No, men taking responsibility to ensure they're not duped is what's important. I…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:29 PM
0

What tests? I've already posted links from lawsuits from the ACLU discussing this. This isn't tin-foil hat conspiracy, it's a gross violation of mens' rights.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:42 PM
1

So if a woman insisted that you were the father of her child, why would you not go to court to prove otherwise? And if you refused, how would that be to your advantage in the eyes of the court? If the father wanted to prove badly enough that the child is his, and the woman is claiming it's his, why would there be a dispute? If the father is saying it's not his, why wouldn't he submit a DNA test to begin with? He still has a choice, however. or failing to pay maintenance That's only once fatherho…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:57 PM
1

Which they can find out by taking you to court and getting a test from you anyway. Not necessarily. Can you refuse to give a DNA sample if it gets to court? And why would you refuse the one option that would prove parentage? It depends on whether or not a crime was committed, i.e., falsifying a birth certificate.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:45 PM
1

Why would they create a law that says storing DNA is banned? It's already not banned, as I've shown, they already believe they can do it (unless the ACLU wins). None of the links you supplied suggested extending the database to DNA supplied in the course of paternity tests It doesn't have to mention paternity tests, as paternity tests are part of medical procedures. Do they list every single medical procedure? No. The only way a father should give up his DNA is if the father wants it done to pro…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:33 PM
0

How is it breaking the law to get DNA when it's required that men give up the DNA in the first place? Did you even read the links I posted involving the ACLU suing the federal government over their DNA database?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:44 PM
1

This doesn't make sense, at all. No, you're not giving up your DNA by having a kid, since they can't know if it's your DNA or not. And even ignoring that, if the mother decided to insist that you were the father, wouldn't you have to take a DNA test anyway to prove it one way or the other anyway? That would be up to the father. Perhaps the father would be happy to get out. It's a two way street - the mother could use the pre-existing info to prove you were the father, but it could also prove you…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:32 PM
-2

1) Online identity has nothing to do with my DNA. 2) By your logic, we should give up all of our rights instead of fighting for them, since we're in the "information age". Why don't we just put camera's in every home that way we can see if a woman's lying about the rape or not? That will solve that problem.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:35 AM
-2

Well, the child's parents determine what procedures to perform on the child. If the father wants it done, then it could be established via court order or something. There's no perfect solution, but making something like this mandatory seems far far too dangerous.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 02:02 AM
-3

That's it. Then you can throw it all in the bin afterwards. Who's to say that they'll throw it away? I don't see why a paternity test has to involve permanent registration with a government database. They consistently look for ways to expand it. Consistently.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:51 AM
3

Sure, if the father wants to have one done, there should be nothing stopping him. I never said no paternity tests at all.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:24 AM
-5

just that as far as the Law and Government is concerned, the father is 'unknown'. Essentially meaning, the mother has all rights and the father has none what so ever. A Birth Certificate is a Government document, used EXPRESSLY for the purposes of registering parentage. So? Doesn't mean I should have to give up my genetic information. Simple statement from both the parent and father should be sufficient, unless there's a reason to suspect a crime (i.e., lying on the document). If the father want…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:13 AM
-20

That basically ends mens' rights as we know it. What if you're in witness protection and someone in the mafia suspects that you're John Doe? What if they had your hair sample and hired someone to do a simple search to find matching DNA?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:01 AM
-8

It's a DNA test, is it not?
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:45 AM
-9

Oh I see, so according to you, it's OK to violate someone's rights for the speculative good of others (speculative because there's an extremely good chance the person being vaccinated will never be exposed to the pathogens at all). By your logic, my right to kill someone else is violated by state and federal laws. This is false, sense you do not have the right to kill another person, just as you don't have the right to enroll in public schools without vaccinations. In fact, you actually can get …
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:35 AM
0

Vaccinations are required because without them, you can carry and spread contagious diseases. It's a health risk that risks the health of the human population. Lack of DNA tests do not risk the health of the human population,
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:22 AM
-15

So you can't be a legal parent to a child unless you give up your genetic information? Please. That's a farce.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:10 AM
1

That's not what "mandatory" means.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:54 PM
-7

We do lots of routine tests on newborn children. Not necessarily. Giving DNA is giving up information about your body. It's already been shown that drug companies buy this information and use it. Perhaps some father doesn't want his true identity to be known. He shouldn't have to give up information about himself if he doesn't want to, and there's no warrant. And no, not all tests have to be performed on newborn children. For example, anti-medicine religious groups routinely perform these proced…
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:43 PM
-7

Forcing a medical procedure on people for having a child? How is that not a violation of rights?
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:27 PM
5

I was just going to post that here. I suspect that most people take a paternity test for a reason. I find it hard to believe that people would take a paternity test unless the father's identity was in doubt.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 11:17 PM
-9

With the exception that likely everyone you're claiming to be 'anti-women' also happens to be in support of equality unlike feminism which is all about female empowerment and entitlement. The portion of feminists who feel that way is ~= to the portion of MRAs that feel that way. People coming to groups about a topic No, this is a group that claims to be about mens rights. It's not. It's about anti-women.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 09:24 PM
-14

And this is why I say MRA's aren't really about mens rights; they're about being anti-women.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 08:34 PM
1

Um a few studies that contradict other studies is not busting a myth.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:31 PM
0

All women are not paid less than all men, that is a blatant lie. All women are not penalized because some women have children. LOOOOOOOOLLLL WSJ, known GOP chauvinist heaven. Gtfo here with that garbage. Come back to me when you have some relevant statistics that debunk government data: Here's a hint, you won't have any. LOOOOOOL WSJ. You're a pesky little MRA. Typical idiot. Yes and while we're at it, lets line up all of the German men and women alive today and throw them in concentration camps…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 10:37 PM
0

Wow. I know you are a troll and all but that lie right there is just pathetic even for trolling standards. No, you're an idiot who doesn't know how to interpret facts. You have poor reading comprehension. What's this? Another attempt to jerk this argument in a different direction? Yeap, I think it is. No, just punching holes in your stupid statement that women should "want" to take care of their kids. Of course they should want to. So should men. We need to have children to keep the human race a…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:17 PM
-1

Women are not obligated to have children Correct, but all women are penalized for actions of other women. That's why all women are paid less, regardless of whether or not they have children. women who choose to have them usually want to care for them But men aren't supposed to want? Compare the number of men who leave their child vs. the number of women. cut in pay Except the cut in pay is not only for the maternity leave period. I would agree that there should be a cut in pay strictly for mater…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:38 PM
0

Women leave work when they have a kid. It's called maternity leave, where they are paid while not being at work. 1) Women have a biological obligation for at least 9 months to care for the child. The government numbers I've project do not discuss the decrease in salary only for maternity leave periods. 2) There is not paternity leave, which is fine and correct. When men have families they work twice as hard than single men. Ok, troll, I'm going to have to ask for a citation. Men are socialized t…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:04 PM
0

Businesses do not penalize women for having children. Women are not paid less per hour because they have children. Yes, they do. That's why a woman's pay goes down when she has a kid, but a man's pay goes up. Are you saying single men work more hours when they have kids? Please. This is a salary boost, not an hours worked boost. If you're not even going to get your first point correct, I'm not reading the rest of your drivel.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:29 PM
0

Actually, that's a lie. Repeating it won't make it the truth. LOOOOOOOOOL don't let the facts defeat your dogma. Allow me to quote the government's findings: "Women in the workforce are also less likely to work a full-time schedule and are more likely to leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men, further suppressing women's wages. These differing work patterns lead to an even larger earnings gap between men and women - suggesting that working women are penalized for their dual ro…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 02:15 PM
1

No. You are expecting me to say something you can quote mine, because you are a troll, and I am done feeding you. There is a difference. This doesn't even make sense. The reason you refuse to tell me the reason is because you know research has already disproven all of your dogma. You're clinging to the past. Let it go. The new world isn't a bad place. No. Yet another lie from the lying troll, what a shock. There's no lie there, it's the truth. Because women are directly responsible for 9 months …
/r/MensRights14/09/11 12:37 PM
1

I'm not avoiding anything. There have been numerous studies all over the western world by people, institutions, and governments that explain why men earn more than women and none of them say it is because of sexism. You can't say what it is because it isn't true. It's quite simple, really. What you did was say that all women everywhere are paid less because they are forced to become pregnant. No, what I said is that women are the only ones who can become pregnant, therefor, businesses use this t…
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:20 AM
1

Do you think you are clever? I'm asking because you need to know you aren't clever. You keep avoiding the question. You stated there were reasons men make more for the same job than women. I elaborated why child birth as a reason is a farce.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 10:46 PM
1

Actually I'm arguing that men are not systematically paying women less than men because of some sexist discrimination conspiracy and that getting pregnant isn't the only reason women earn less. So, then what are you saying? What is the exact reason women are paid less? Are they inherently poorer performers? It wasn't just women who suffered. Any other type of suffering, women inherently suffer. Slavery --> women were slaves too. So again, I proved you and your original post to be full of shit. U…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:27 PM
0

Last time I checked women are not forced to have children. Also, pregnancy isn't the only choice involved in what women earn, and it is a choice make no mistake about that. If women don't get pregnant, the human species ceases to exist. Basically you're arguing for the destruction of all humanity instead of giving women equal pay. Actually imposing unjust laws on people who had nothing to do with a discriminatory past is bigotry. They are men, are they not? They're not doing everything in their …
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:07 PM
1

This lie was debunked. There is a reason men earn more than women and it is because of life choices that both men and women make. No, it's not. Women have to get pregnant to perpetuate the species. There's no choice in that. Men have no biological obligation to carry a fetus. A woman's role is much larger than a man's when it comes to the perpetuation of the species. That's not a choice, that's a biological fact. And there in lies the bigoted rub. Remember how I said people like you only help pe…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 05:49 PM
-2

This is the problem with pesky feminist bigots, they confuse bigotry with legal equality. Like this; Yes, most definitely there has to be equal punishment for the crime. Men continue to make more than women for the same jobs. Hell, men even get paternity leave now. Want to make things equal: have men get less pay than women for the same job for 50 years and lose voting rights for the next 3 presidential elections. This sub reddit showcases more than just female crimes and usually when it does sh…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 04:51 PM
-2

Yes, only white rich men and their white rich wives if those white rich men died. Except that isn't true. Case in point; your denial that feminism has created any legal bigotry. This is the problem with pesky MRAs - they confuse legal equality with bigotry. Your pathetic attempt at inciting a men vs. women argument is well...pathetic. Just more proof from the troll that the troll is a troll. I'm just stating facts. You want to subscribe to a sub-reddit that is designed to strictly showcase crime…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:37 PM
-2

All men were not able to vote, only elite families were allowed one vote. If the husband of that family died then the widow would vote in his place. Yeah, that's not true. Only white men were allowed to vote in nascent America. Feminism has spread legal bigotry and MRAs and anti-feminists will abolish that bigotry. If you don't like it I have a suggestion for you. No, men have created legal bigotry. Feminists and women a like will destroy that, just as we destroy men on the math exams.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:04 PM
-2

No, I'm flat out stating a fact: r/mensrights is not about mens rights, but is about proving that women are the evil of the earth. That's exactly what it is. I'm not trolling, I'm just stating facts: Men have had more than enough privileges. Let's see how they adapt when they are the unprivileged minority.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 03:03 PM
-2

You can't blame us for the actions of generations past. This is completely disingenuous and the sort of bullshit ( YOU MEN HAVE HAD 5000 YEARS TO MAKE A MESS OF IT ) that men are routinely accosted with. In order to level the playing field, you men need to be oppressed for the same amount of time. Except, it's now measured that women have a higher aptitude for math and language than men do, so don't expect the playing field to equal out.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 01:34 PM
-4

Women and men were denied the right to vote. Men received the right to vote before women but only if they registered for the draft. Men were not denied the right to vote. Registering for the draft was something almost any white male could do. That's like saying "men were denied the right to own a house because they didn't have the credit to get a mortgage". There was nothing inherent to the policy that restricted men. The same can't be said about women. If you can't even get your first point cor…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 01:33 PM
-2

Except you forget, men had laws that flat out stated that women weren't allowed to work or vote. MRAs didn't try to abolish those laws, now did they?
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:30 PM
-2

MRAs and anti-feminists seek to abolish these laws. MRAs do not seek to abolish laws that destroyed womens' rights. That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:59 AM
-3

the woman COULD NEVER have lied about being abused Except most of the time, they're not lying. Men commit most of the crimes in this world. Deal with it.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:41 AM
-3

Um, Men actually had laws that prevented women from working and voting.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:40 AM
-2

I more than well understand the concept of mens' rights. However, what you don't understand, is that this reddit is full of anti-feminism and anti-women. Feminism is just fighting for womens' equality. It's become mutated, just as pesky MRAs have become mutated. If you can't see that, then there's no hope for you.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:34 AM
-4

I love how you continue to misrepresent what I've said while accusing ME of being illogical. I'm not misrepresenting what you said. There's no way for a woman's crime to make sense unless you're trying to say that women crimes affect mens' rights. But when that crime (and/or the punishment) is an example of the court system's bias against men This I agree with, however, the front page of r/mensrights is not full of these kinds of stories. were directly related, which is a position I never held n…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:32 AM
-7

See, the reason I subscribed to this reddit is not because I don't grasp the concept; I perfectly grasp the concept of male rights. What you don't grasp, however, is that this sub-reddit is not really about mens' rights - it's about anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:25 PM
-5

Really? I don't mean to be rude, but that's about the dumbest statement I've heard today. You should take a basic course on logic. There is nothing at all inherent about a woman's crime and a man's rights. In your mind, there might be, but you're not a logical person. I never stated that there was a connection between the two Really? but just above you state this: "I don't mean to be rude, but that's about the dumbest statement I've heard today." So in fact you are stating that raising awareness…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:10 PM
-2

I understand and I agree with you.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:08 PM
-5

Yes, I did. Raising awareness of crimes a random woman commits has nothing to do with men's rights. For example, you display faulty logic. Take these statements: "women have to power to do this to men in our family courts." and "women can be rapists too." They have nothing to do with each other. Women do not win custody battles because people don't believe woman commit crimes.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:29 PM
-5

Men don't systematically oppress women? Women are literally the enemies of men. See, you're no different than the nazi-fems you despise.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:23 PM
-8

I see plenty of posts here just simply outlining a crime a woman has committed. I fail to see how a woman's crime == men's rights. They have nothing to do with each other.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:23 PM
1

Yes, I do. I reject forcing medical procedures on anyone. Furthermore, I reject willing have to give out my genetic code to anyone.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:04 AM
-1

The reporters comment at 00:40. The snake aggressively bites the breast, and the male responds "typical male". How is this not clear?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 09:14 PM
-1

Spam link?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 07:19 PM
0

The disturbing part, to me, is that it's a male making this comment. A typical male is primitive and unable to control its sexual urges? Fuck you.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 06:25 PM
-1

That's not the article from the OP's submission.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 01:38 AM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights14/07/11 12:59 AM
-6

No you didn't. Flat out lie. No wonder men are such criminals.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 12:45 AM
-3

So basically, you have no way to validate that the story was as ridiculous as the FB post says. It just fits your uneducated dogma, so you run with it. You're a fundamental Christian.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 10:28 PM
3

No, I'm not typing all of that into a browser. Until that exact link is posted, I'm calling bullshit on the whole submission.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:29 PM
2

The link to the story, idiot.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:27 PM
-5

If he didn't enjoy it, he wouldn't have popped wood.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 07:13 PM
6

Why not link to the actual article?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:14 PM
3

Being a whore is not a crime. Being a rapist is a crime.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:05 AM
2

The hair in the trunk of her car that could only have come from the corpse of her child. No.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:48 PM
1

So? Just like in that case, the prosecution sucked. Personally, I think both OJ and Casey were involved, but I wouldn't be able to convict them based on my gut-instinct. OJ was even worse with racist cops planting evidence and all that.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 03:09 AM
10

OJ Simpson. Please point to a single shred of evidence that exists to directly tie her actions to murder of her daughter.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 10:41 PM
2

Religion's, culture's, all have there warnings about women. LOOOOOOOOL Religion? That's your argument now? Religion? Man, no wonder you don't have any sources for anything you believe, you believe in religion. You're an idiot all around. Cultures? Yeah, except for the cultures where the woman's ruled. LOOOOOOL, how selective and idiotic your beliefs are. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 10:19 PM
3

Everyone knows women are the problem. EVERYONE. Except that it isn't. The backlash is coming.. Spoken like someone who values his own importance more than anyone else. You're a joke. There's no "backlash", only the useless, isolated scenarios you created in your head.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 05:46 PM
1

And your posts in this thread are typical of how women wind men up with your bullshit, and then men finally say "fuck you". And then women turn around and blame men for the reaction. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL SO wait a minute? It's a woman's fault that a man can't control himself now? Simply proving a point to be a fact is now responsible for men being more violent than women? LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Some little retard whose had his heart broken too many times and takes Reddit posts too seriously is now …
/r/MensRights03/07/11 04:59 PM
1

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. So, basically, men are violent because they're dumb, uneducated, and easily manipulated??? That's your argument now? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You and the rest of you cunts are going down. Hard. And there's the truth. Can't back up your arguments with facts, so you resort to testosterone driven responses that only aim to silence opinions, instead of disprove opinions. That's why you came from a 3rd tier university; you weren't good enough for the elite. You'r…
/r/MensRights03/07/11 04:33 AM
1

Its a well known fact that women are kept out of prison, usually because they have children. That has nothing to do with convictions only sentences. If women were just as violent as men, there would be statistics backing up your claim. Oh, that's right, you have no statistics. Every single statistic shows men commit more sex crimes and more violent crimes than women. Hell, even men lead in car accidents. You're going to say that less women are blamed on car accidents because they have children? …
/r/MensRights02/07/11 03:18 PM
1

Except, your argument would make sense if there were an equal number of male and female criminals. There aren't; males are far more likely to be violent criminals than are female. What does it matter if the woman sleeps around? The male isn't sleeping around too? He's not part of the creation of the child. Statistically speaking, the problem is dead-beat fathers, not women preventing father visitation out of malice. Like I said: men need to be strapped down. I would even say they need hormone th…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 03:42 AM
1

LOOOOOOOOL. That's why men with father issues have the most trouble. Look at the high-crime/low-income areas: dead beat dads.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 02:51 PM
1

Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." That's an old definition and is not the only one. If you can't even get your first statement right, I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your spurious post. This is why men are so dumb; all emotions and testosterone, no intelligence.
/r/MensRights01/07/11 02:41 PM
0

When did I say we shouldn't address female abuse, or to convict men instead of women? Since men are uncontrollable, as you can see via all violent crime statistics, extra measures must be taken to strap them down.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:37 PM
1

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. The law does not present a bias towards accusing and convicting men of sex and violent crimes. The reason such things occur is because men are more violent by nature. This is documented throughout history. Every culture, every society. If you're going to claim that men are unfairly convicted and accused, you're going to have to provide credible evidence that suggests that men are not inherently more violent than women, and that the only reason the number…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:03 PM
1

It doesn't exist. I've presented the relevant information.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:28 AM
-1

Not as much as men. Most definitely, when looking to enact public policy in regards to strapping down a demographic, you need to look at who is the perpetrator: MEN.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 01:55 AM
1

Blah blah blah blah blah. Show me even the number of women charged with violent crimes vs. the number actually convicted if you want to make that argument.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:21 PM
2

OK. I'm not nitpicking, I'm just stating a fact. The aggregate data shows that more sex offenders are men, not women.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 11:00 PM
-1

Except that, the aggregate data I showed you showed that men commit sex crimes far more often than women. Men are far more evil. The vast majority of crimes are committed by men. That's why you can't accept that fact. You just run around and cherry pick random instances to try to disprove a statistical fact. "No No No, but you see, in Prison 682A, Women did more sex crimes than men!!". In fact, most violent crimes in general are committed by uncontrollable men.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 08:09 PM
0

You're just rambling now. Please show me aggregate statistics that women are just as often sex offenders as men.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:44 PM
0

Again. Crime surveys are useless for determining the number of men raped by women for the simple fact that it's only been recent that men are starting to recognize that sexual violence against them by women is a crime Sounds like a measly excuse to me. Are men that stupid that they don't know what sexual abuse is? Please. Please show aggregate stats or I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. Just a quick scan of your post shows that you just make un-cited anecdotal claims wit…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:19 PM
1

No, I've given you aggregate data. All you've done is give a few anecdotal instances where women are equal to men.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:02 PM
0

Your own link stops at 1997. Why? Please show me what the current numbers are for aggregate sex crimes between men and women. The rest of your post isn't even worth reading if you can't provide a simple aggregate statistic to counter mine.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:59 PM
-1

Everything you posted is completely hearsay without any backing from statistics. Everything. And your excuses are funny "women commit less sexual abuse after being caught because they use less drugs!!!!" There's another reason to show how poor men behave. t could mean that they are just less likely to be caught in the first place. You'd have to go show that's the case. If convicted female offenders were 1% in 1994 and 8% in 1997, what is it today? You'd have to provide some evidence to dispute i…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:38 PM
-1

I wonder if we surveyed the general student population in schools what we'd find about teachers and sexual abuse. Too bad that those types of abuses only make up a small portion of the sexual abuse, most of which is committed by men.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:09 PM
0

This is the exact quote: No, your 65% was not exact. You said 65. Use the exact number so that way your spurious quote can be validated. All sexual contact between staff and prisoners in a prison is considered abuse. Misconduct. "Results suggested that male sex offenders were significantly more likely than female sex offenders to be rearrested for both sexual and nonsexual offenses. However" http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/23/10/1394.short The vast majority of sex offenders are male: "Additionall…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 04:56 PM
-4

From page FIVE: Next time you quote a statistic, use the exact numbers. You said 65%, when it's 64. When you search for "65" and nothing shows up, it ruins your credibility. You also said the female was the "aggressor". I fail to see where it says that. It just says that more female guards had consensual sex with male prisoners than the other way around. So, basically, you lied. You said females were the aggressor, and I don't see that anywhere. And you still haven't pointed out this: 94% of sex…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 04:33 PM
0

In the document. Read it. I did. Please point me to the page and chart. I read it, I didn't see that statistic there. 50% versus 70% isn't as significant a difference as what you're making it out to be. Yes, it is actually. It still shows men do it more. It's significant. You've so far made 2 quotes and attributed them to a study, but those stats are not found in the study. What did you think, that I wouldn't validate your spurious claims?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 04:22 PM
-2

Almost 3% of men Not pedophilia, is it? 94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. Where does it say that? Also, is it sexual abuse? Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. Again, where does it say that? 50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. "Although the majority of the youth (70%) had been exploited by males..."
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:36 PM
1

Source?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:10 AM
-1

Good thing there's significantly less of them!
/r/MensRights29/06/11 03:13 AM
1

There's what you think, and then there's reality. Reality, as it stands, is on my side. Except that it's not. Linking to a random unidentified paper means you are a professor? Please. As a professor, regardless of whether or not you believe me, I make it a point to bust my ass for my kids - more often than not this means I have to swallow my pride, shut my ego up, and focus on helping them learn. You're a professor of computer science? Is that your statement? What more do you want? Just a simple…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:59 PM
1

Assuming that you didn't change the author, the title, a few sentences. Anyways, please show me how this proves you're a professor. Could you not be an undergraduate who worked on this paper?
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:51 PM
1

Doesn't prove anything. Is this a joke? Just create a dropbox, steal some papers, put them in there, then add a dumb "proof.txt". It proves nothing. Edit your Web page to say "wedoexist gtchessplayer" at the bottom. It's pretty clear you're not a professor.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:30 PM
1

Again, proves nothing. I can find tex documents all over the place and pretend they're my own.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:28 PM
1

Linking to a random paper doesn't really prove anything.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 06:40 PM
1

You're placing the burden of proof on me, this is a tired and baseless tactic. No different than asking me to disprove the existence of God since I'm an atheist. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, and your claim is that the realm of computer science views HCI as snake oil voodoo bullshit useless magic and what not. My original claim is that HCI is not computer science. You claimed that Mandarin was not computer science. How would one prove that Mandarin is not computer sc…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 06:16 PM
1

I'm taking the stance that most people are taking also" - again, find the evidence for this. not anecdotal evidence, but statistically significant evidence that indicates that the majority of people in the realm of computer science believe HCI is bogus and doesn't belong here. Please show evidence for your claim that studying Mandarin isn't contributing to computer science. 'll do you one better - do you come to Athens any? If so, you should hang out with us, grab a beer, enjoy our weekend long …
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:56 PM
1

A male in the US who is 6'5" is considered tall - but that doesn't make him a giant. Having more money than 78% of the population doesn't make you rich. Where did I say it made you rich? Again, why should I provide you with evidence, it's clear you ignore other people's evidence and instead side with your own shoddy arguments. Except you haven't provided any evidence for anything you've said. All you have to do is give a link to your Web page, I'll send you an e-mail, you can respond. You can ev…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 05:17 PM
0

LOOOOOL. You're dumb. It's nearly double the national median. Actually, the rate they pay means you make more than 78% of the population.. I thought you were supposed to be a professor with 2 PhDs? Source? It's pretty clear you're not a professor.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 04:54 PM
0

Please show me evidence that studying the Chinese language does not contribute to the theory of computing. backed by countless pieces of evidence - that HCI is an important and vital field in the realm of Computer Science. If I went and did a study on how cars are used culturally in Uganda, does that contribute to combustion science? You have not shown any evidence that HCI contributes to the theory of computing. You've shown research papers. I can show you research papers studying Chinese histo…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 04:48 PM
0

Oh, and P.S., the research internships pay a lot. For example, MSR pays 7k a month, with a 2k relocation bonus. Adobe pays $47/hr. IBM is 6k a month plus housing. That's a far cry from "pennies".
/r/MensRights24/06/11 04:33 PM
0

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL that's the best you have? Well, I wouldn't expect much else. You lost the argument, and you lost badly.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:52 PM
0

AHHHH, OK, I understand now. I was confused by "holl-thing" I should have drawn the connection to Hollaback, but for some reason, my mind didn't draw the connect. I understand what you're saying now!
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:51 PM
0

Dude, I have no idea as to what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:26 PM
0

I won't be contacting my colleagues to cry about your nonsense within a public forum, I will be contacting them to make sure they are aware of who you are so as to avoid you in the academic realm re: conducting research. OK, go for it. You will be laughed at. It's actually sad that you'd try to get "G from L" in trouble for this, but hey, you're stupid. I can't fix stupid. You've shown little respect for the field and little respect for the people within the field, and have absolutely no idea wh…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:24 PM
0

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Ok, let's just assume what you really are: a student at UGA who does "HCI" but has an inferiority complex because he knows he doesn't actually do real CS. He knows this, and other students have made comments to him before, so he feels inadequate. I could know how to contact the college of computing, and I could know how to ask my colleagues if they know G from L*****. Let's assume that I am "G from L*********". Let's say I am this person, and you contact the CoC …
/r/MensRights22/06/11 03:37 AM
-1

LOOOOOOOOOL. You're not a professor. Like I said, you're a dilettante, and you're butthurt, for some reason, because I put HCI in its place.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:34 AM
0

Source?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:30 AM
1

Except you're not a professor of computer science. You don't do computer science, hence, you are not a scientist. You do HCI. You're more of a sociologist than a scientist.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:23 AM
1

So, just because people do research in a field does not mean it contributes to the theory of computing. Someone using computers to solve climate models does not contribute to computer science. They have separate fields for those, such as scientific computing, or computational science and engineering. Why? Because they typically do not make contributions to computer science. Again, you idiotically confused computing with computer science.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:21 AM
0

Your a disgrace to my profession It's "you're", professor.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:20 AM
1

Well if it were my proposal, why would I be: 1) insulting the proposal 2) Bashing the discipline that this proposal is supposed to contribute to? 3) The proposal is a joke. The field is a joke. The only reason such a preposterous idea would be entertained is only out of political correctness.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:12 AM
1

That said, I'm starting to question whether or not you're even a PhD candidate. My initial reaction is to say that you're not, and you're merely throwing around words under the guise of a candidate from an accredited tech university in order for this proposal to be heard. Sounds like you're just butt-hurt to me. Any worthy comp sci PhD candidate wouldn't dare suggest than such an important field in computer science, specifically HCI, is merely bunk. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You obviously have…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 02:08 AM
1

I agree. Also, in regards to "social networks", the degree the students get actually says "in social networks" so it doesn't ruin the reputation of the school when employers realize these people are duds when it comes to computing.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:59 AM
1

Why are you asking me as if this is my proposal? Anyways, here's the committee from the e-mail Committee: Dr. Amy Bruckman, Advisor, School of Interactive Computing Dr. Wenda Bauchspies, School of History, Technology, and Society Dr. Eric Gilbert, School of Interactive Computing Dr. Beth Mynatt, School of Interactive Computing Dr. Shaowen Bardzell, School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:56 AM
4

They send the announcement to attend the proposal to the college of computing mailing list. What's ridiculous is that they're trying to turn Feminist HCI into a valid area of computing research. It is not. It contributes nothing to computing.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:43 AM
1

I didn't say computer science. It has nothing to do with computer science. It's interactive computing. More specifically, it's HCI. But anways, HCI is bunk in my opinion, and especially "Feminist HCI".
/r/MensRights22/06/11 01:30 AM
2

PhD thesis. Georgia Tech, School of Interactive computing.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:57 PM
1

It's a thesis proposal.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 11:50 PM
0

Here's an example. This was a party about a year or so after H.S. let out. I was with my friend Chris and he had one of his friends from college with him (they went to school about 2 hours away from our home town). Bitz was in the bathroom on the phone, sitting on the floor arguing with her boyfriend. The guy goes in to pee, and pees. The girl just sits there. He was in there for 10 minutes with her, but she stopped yelling on the phone after a minute or 2. Turns out, all he did was go pee, and …
/r/MensRights09/06/11 01:39 AM
0

As I said, I'm at work, so I can't really get detailed. Once I'm home, I'll be able to give you more details. This is far more than something you've done. And I would actually say most adult film stars and dancers probably didn't have the best upbringing. Would you agree or disagree?
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:51 PM
0

I mean she can do what she wants, but I find it hard to believe that a girl like that didn't have something happen to her during her childhood.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 08:01 PM
1

Oh she was super super promiscuous. I mean, to the point where you'd wonder if something bad happened to her as a child or something. I'm at work, so I can't really get too detailed, but let's just say, if she was at a party and was one of the only girl there (the other girls would be her similarly natured friends), it's safe to say the entire party would leave happy and there would be a nice video that would rival modern day adult videos.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 07:20 PM
2

They have a law that basically says, if you're a teacher in a grade school, you can't sleep with the enrolled students, no matter how old they are.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:12 PM
1

I don't see what this has to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:01 AM
3

I replied with this: This is a joke. If someone steals my property, and then the person claims that I sold her the property, then I most definitely have to prove I did not indeed sell her the property, as I have to establish the burden of proof. When accusing someone, you ALWAYS have to have evidence that the accuser is guilty. This is the dumbest article I’ve ever read. It shows why women are incapable, on a large scale, of doing real scientific research: judgement clouded by pure emotions. My …
/r/MensRights05/05/11 04:49 PM
1

That doesn't even make sense. Who is "his"? The OP? The person in the GIF? The fact is: her claim is correct. If 1 male was seriously injured, and 4 females, then the females were seriously injured 400 times more.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 04:33 AM
-4

Well the fact is, your citation only covers attack incidents in general, hers covers serious injuries. If man was seriously injured once, and women were seriously injured 4 times, that's 400% more for the women.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 11:59 PM
4

Hypocrisy at it's finest. She also sued Merrill Lynch for MILLIONS over sexual harassment, and settled. Women like her are why I almost never believe sexual harassment cases.
/r/MensRights12/04/11 07:03 PM
0

I figured you'd leave when presented with, you know, an actual factual definition.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 04:21 AM
0

Sexual assault is an assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault Violence isn't the sole indicator of rape, otherwise all those kinky folks in /r/bdsm would be in prison right now. If you're doing something to someone's body against their wishes and causing them harm, how is that not violent? Clearly you're a troll though, so I won't be engaging you any longer. That's convenient. You got completely owned w…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 03:25 AM
-1

Rape is not sexual assault? Sexual assault is not a subset of assault, thus making it assault?
/r/MensRights31/03/11 03:15 AM
-1

Its the conception of a child without consent. Very similar to the concept of rape is "sex without consent." No, raping is actual assault. You are actually physically doing something to the person's body. With this, you're not actually doing something to the person's body. Once the sperm leaves the body, it's no longer a part of you. Just like spilling blood on the floor. You have no right to ask the grocery store for your blood back after you slip on the floor.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 02:49 AM
-8

Maybe paranoid, but not stuck in a lifelong situation with a psycho :)
/r/MensRights30/03/11 07:55 PM
-12

Honestly, I don't see why she shouldn't get child support. It is 50% him. If he doesn't want a kid at all, he should take proper precautions.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 06:40 PM
1

Men historically have the riskier jobs, and there's a simple evolutionary reason for it. Suppose a war occurs and in your town, you have 1000 men and 1000 women. If you send all of the women to war, and only one comes back, how many births will you have that year? Just one. Send the 1000 men to war, and if only 1 comes back, how many births can you have that year? 1000. And you only talk about "natural disasters". Crime is mostly committed against men. Most risky jobs are dominated by men; those…
/r/MensRights07/03/11 12:32 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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