TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

GroundhogExpert Archive

View 0 posts and 231 comments by GroundhogExpert on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

It feels SUPER staged.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/03/21 11:17 AM
1

It's weird to me that anyone would watch this and think it's not completely fake. Why blur out the faces? The reactions seem so unnatural, and the end is like people's jerk-off fantasies on how they wish they could've gotten back against an ex who cheated or dumped them. How would he know where she was, and when she was with some other dude? When did he have time to write all that shit down?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/03/21 11:16 AM
1

Could cut the sexual tension with a knife.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/20 12:56 PM
1

Even if that was the case, what do you give a shit? The goal of a free society is to engender stronger minds, sharper minds more tolerant of opposing views because review provides security and defense. I hold a few beliefs strongly, and I will gladly engage and defend those views if someone wants to attack them. If I lose the ideological battle, maybe I need to update my beliefs, then I hold even stronger beliefs. Censorship breeds dead dogma, views that are held without contest are held without…
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/20 11:45 PM
1

The fuck is "christianphobic?" So we just add "phobia" after a word we want to defend so we can slander people holding opposing views? I've got a few bones to pick in this area. A lot of prefixes and suffixes are being blatantly misused. People aren't afraid of homosexuals or transgender people, it's either a form of value expression (which is a legitimate basis for conversation, and should engaged in good faith) or outright bigotry, neither are a "phobia." I've got issues with the use of "cis" …
/r/PussyPassDenied13/07/20 11:40 PM
3

Was on the phone when I wrote that last comment. Let me do a better job of articulating: I read the comment in a certain light, and was curious for some clarification, not because you didn't express your position, but because people often leave a stance they expressly hold implied in similar language. I believe it is hypocritical, though I use caution because "liberals" or "hollywood" is not a single entity, though a lot of the division in this instance is likely just to insulate from liability.…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/20 08:53 PM
3

I agree on all points, but your previous comment make it sound as though Hollywood should be barred from making things offensive because they're so complicit in the cancel culture (tearing down Lincoln's statue).
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/20 08:10 PM
3

Wait, which side are you on? Being offended isn't a proper basis for public action, or it is?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/20 01:15 PM
1

Who?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/20 01:12 PM
0

I could tell she had low moral standards by her shirt. Old enough to have supported Phil Fulmer, piece of trash snitch fan. Not a fan of racism, either. Hate both, not sure which one I hate more, though.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/07/20 12:44 PM
2

Even friends who send angry texts can catch a harassing communications, which is considered a DV, here. I was hired to defend a lady who would hook up with this other girl to get guys in 3-ways. It was purely to fuck a guy with another girl. She sent some demeaning texts, not even threatening, and the municipality were willing to charge her with harassing communications, it was quickly thrown out, but it took a court appearance.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/20 01:48 AM
3

It was either an on-going fight, or it's staged, why else was the guy filming and focused specifically on the guy? You can even hear the woman shouting before she runs into the guy. Maybe it's not domestic, but it has a LOT of the characteristics. She hits a guy, comes back to confront him outside of her car. Why did she come back if she's not personally invested in the individual? Sure, there are a lot of assumptions, but what are the alternative scenarios to explain this video? Lastly, DV char…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/04/20 01:32 AM
1

It sucks that this whole thing was filmed, without the hard proof of the series of events, I would just make a deal with the otherside to not show up as a witness, or to mutually agree to dismiss. A lot of prosecutors are sympathetic to couples doing this, judges are less so. Every few months, another judge will make national news for dismissing a DV charge, letting the person out of jail, who then just goes back and kills their spouse. There's nothing that blocks both of them being charged and …
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/20 11:20 PM
-1

Then, after the threat had ended, the guy beats the girl. I think the context makes it highly likely this is a couple, or a very recently ex-couple.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/20 10:58 PM
-3

Dude got out of that car, she was screaming at him as she drove down the rode alongside him. It's why the guy was filming. They're a couple, she hit him with a car, and he proceeds to kick the shit out of her. That's a DV charge on both.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/20 10:57 PM
-9

This is domestic violence, and both parties are breaking the law.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/20 10:25 PM
3

Oh, so we're gonna have this argument again?
/r/PussyPassDenied21/02/20 04:33 PM
6

Do you think the average man wouldn't be able to deadlift 135 pounds?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/03/19 05:08 PM
1

So she's gonna get 5 years?
/r/PussyPassDenied20/10/18 05:37 PM
-22

Sad reality is that this person has likely been exposed to violence as a method of conflict resolution most of her life. She very much expects to be beaten the second he starts coming over the counter. I can't stand bullies and people who try to strongarm others to get their way, this is better used as demonstration for why parents need to be very aware of how they behave in front of their children and how they treat their children. It has a huge impact on the rest of their lives, who they becom…
/r/PussyPassDenied16/10/18 03:50 PM
3

It was consensual when she molested children while they were blacked out? Why did you even bother commenting?
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/18 02:24 PM
1

About time.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/04/18 02:23 PM
1

Is this the woman that 50 cent fucked and put it on the internet?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/03/18 11:30 PM
1

It's like you're in my head. Are you my spirit animal?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/10/17 12:36 AM
1

I started reading through the comments, and got to mine. Would you care to point out the specific hate and ignorance you saw in this thread?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 09:51 PM
4

My side? I'm a liberal, ya dingus. I'm already applying it to "my side." Truth of the matter, I can no longer associate myself with the American left. It's devolved in to this shit soup of every group competing to have the high spot on the totem of suffering. We live in a wonderful country that holds up above almost all else, the right to be left alone. Leave me the fuck alone. That's about as liberal of a principle as I can imagine. I don't want to march with you. I don't want to pay for other …
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 09:37 PM
1

Explicit means unambiguous, dearest. You got the point, as was made evident by your emotional response. You couldn't even keep up the facade of not getting it properly. Knowing something is pejorative isn't the same as knowing your basis for being rude. But again, this is excepting quite a lot from you. There is nothing vague about the hypocrisy of crying about crying. I'm not crying about it, I'm condemning it. It's immoral, and so are you. It's simple, say what you mean and we can go from ther…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:30 PM
2

No, I was rather explicit about the whole zero self awareness and hypocrisy thing. No, you weren't. That's not explicitly stated. You didn't even say "hypocrisy" until JUST NOW. How can it be explicit when it wasn't EXPLICIT? Jesus christ you're fucking stupid. Not getting it or pretending not to is an issue of yours, not mine. It's not an issue. If I'm going to embarrass someone, I'd rather know exactly what they mean. That seems fair to me. Again, your failure to understand isn't a plus on you…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:13 PM
3

Then you're just playing a version of the shell game. I'm not sure if it's dishonest, but I know you're just moving the standard around freely to fit whatever standard you want. It sucks that "tolerance" has been so severely abused that one can hardly reconcile the term with the movement flying its flag. But that doesn't change reality. The reality of the matter is that this sad little piece of shit is going to receive a lot of support and defense from people claiming to be tolerant, claiming th…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:08 PM
5

Are you actually so dumb that you think "cries about 'crybullies' unironically and with zero self awareness" is a full thought? AT BEST the entire comment is a series of implicit statements. AT BEST. But you're too chickenshit to just say what you actually mean, probably because you know you're full of shit and you'll get picked apart. But then again, you're too dumb to realize that you didn't say anything, so maybe you actually think you've nailed me on some point. I don't know, I can't pretend…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 08:00 PM
3

So you're fine making some drive-by insult with a nascent thought. I'm very glad you've left no doubt in my mind that there is no good reason to treat you like an adult. Enjoy your life!
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 06:32 PM
4

Go on ... complete the thought. Use your words. I believe in you.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 06:26 PM
9

The modern so-called tolerance movement is about the perceived disenfranchised groups getting a chance to be the bully. It's not about anything else, or if it ever was, that never came to fruition. This is about using a sword and pretending it's a shield. It's about attacking people while still feigning some victim status. It's disgusting, and it's continually used to justify more and more egregiously degenerate behavior. It's not ok to be a racist. It's not ok to be a pedophile. It's not ok to …
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 05:45 PM
27

I genuinely cannot understand how anyone sane, even being notably compassionate, can look at this behavior and not immediately attribute it to leftist "tolerance." It's already a warped conception of tolerance, I would argue they've been demanding acceptance this entire time while claiming it's just equality and tolerance. But I don't owe anyone acceptance. I don't accept deviant lifestyles as a public expression. You wanna drink piss to get off, go for it, just don't tell me about, don't demand…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 03:50 PM
89

This little experiment in ultratolerance needs to come to an end. It creates crybullies, horrible bigotry, and deepens racial divides. It's a disgusting premise from the outset, this dude isn't a girl, I don't owe him recognition of anything, and now we can clearly see that this movement can't rest on any desirability of outcome. It's just a breeding ground for exceptionally shitty people. Put it to bed, already.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/17 03:44 PM
3

Imagine if half the sanitation workers and coal miners were women. Imagine if only half of the nurses were women. Imagine if only half of college admissions were women.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/08/17 04:58 PM
2

Disgusting, absolutely reprehensible.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 04:03 PM
3

He didn't, the man was convicted with a 7 year suspended sentence and 5 years probation ...
/r/MensRights28/06/17 03:47 PM
9

You are one creepy son of a bitch.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/06/17 03:10 PM
2

Please explain what "true feminism" is.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/06/17 03:09 PM
5

The sheer audacity of sharing the spotlight with a man who literally just fought for his glory, it's disgusting.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/05/17 12:06 AM
5

Eh, I would disagree with that. There are some arguments that are a race to the bottom, but social justice, or group justice, is about punishing people merely for their status as a member of a class/group. It's about as antithetical to justice as one can get.
/r/MensRights24/05/17 06:03 PM
3

But do those harsh penalties have the potential to scare actual victims of rape that fear they don't have enough evidence? How could it? For a false report to be actionable, it must be demonstrably false. If a rape occurred, how could the rapist possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accuser was lying?
/r/PussyPassDenied23/02/17 08:34 AM
1

So many things wrong with this math ... ROI would be way more relevant, but this isn't considering inflation. In short, female Ghostbusters didn't come anywhere close to 77% of the original.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 03:55 PM
1

so if they are so reliable and accurate, why are they no longer admissible in court? Because the probative value doesn't eclipse the prejudicial weight ... This is a widely known answer. You're being very stupid if you're trying to imply some point here that a court not using it means it cannot be either reliable or accurate(and these are quantitative terms, so we need to understand HOW reliable and HOW accurate). If the courts believe they are not worth anything No court in US history has EVER …
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/16 10:05 PM
2

I've never seen a single source that would suggest that lie detectors will average as good as a coin toss. The problem is that people are different, not everyone responds the same, honest or dishonestly. And this matters a lot when using a test for something important, like criminal culpability, or job qualifications. But pretending that you can just dismiss all lie detectors as unreliable because we care greatly about the difference between type 1 and type 2 errors is stupid. Are you stupid?
/r/PussyPassDenied07/07/16 10:40 PM
1

Flexing your sphincter muscle is more reliable, but it still requires training to reliably beat the tests, and trained operators can tell if the subjects are trying to force responses. The reality is always far more grey than most would like to admit, grey doesn't lend itself to hard opinions very well.
/r/PussyPassDenied05/07/16 02:34 AM
1

Lie detector tests are most certainly not unreliable. Under normal conditions with people who have not been trained on how to beat them, and with competent operators, the tests will produce results that can approach 90 percent. Even under controversial conditions, lie detecting tests are between 70 and 90 percent accurate, depending on who you ask. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92847
/r/PussyPassDenied01/07/16 08:19 PM
4

You could easily correct this by having a person in a fluff job who does very little while being quite comfortable, like human resources, shouting at someone with a hard, dirty and uncomfortable job, like a coal miner, that their paychecks aren't equal. But the analogy contained in this cartoon begins to break down when the biggest disconnection from reality: all men being reduced to a single figure that's supposed to represent their relative advantageous position, is assumed by the image. you'r…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 02:08 AM
8

No, it really isn't. Because each horse represents all of those genders. I don't work in investment banking, and I'm not paid on behalf of the people who do work in that sector. I also don't benefit from those salaries/wages/earnings. Just because there are a number of men out earning women across various careers doesn't benefit men, nor does it hinder women. Bill Gates making so much money doesn't do a lick of good for a man who is homeless and penniless. Going along with this image only suppor…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 02:01 AM
2

This is just someone who wants to complain.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 08:12 PM
3

I'm not saying they have, I was just curious what this guy had in mind. Asking for elaboration isn't the same as challenging the claim,.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:19 AM
2

Not trying to be combative, though I'd be interested to hear some examples of when equality of outcome isn't preferred when the numbers are favoring women.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 01:37 AM
-8

You don't get it! That's not what privilege means. It's about how people in society will automatically treat you like an adult, and how they like totally look down at me for saying vapid shit and turning every conversation into a debate about sociology, which they like clearly know nothing about. /s* I guess it was too subtle.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 05:52 PM
1

It also makes me angry that not one guy at the party tried to put a stop to it and considered how you were going to feel the next day. LOL! What? Sounds like everyone was having fun, she made no effort to hide the fact that she was an active participant. But it's somehow everyone else's responsibility to protect this poor little angel from her own decisions because it might make her feel bad later? What a crock of utter shit. The world is covered in bubble wrap, use your discretion.
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:38 PM
4

But no one actually gives a shit, even when the data is compiled. It just doesn't matter because this isn't an issue of empiricism, it's one of placing more value on one group's pain.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 10:25 PM
1

I'm not a patent clerk ...
/r/MensRights17/03/15 04:29 PM
1

But it's not immoral, you're just refusing to admit that you have no concept of what most lawyers do. You're not just ignorant, you're arrogant about your ignorance, as well. Which is why I'll take an engineer over a lawyer in terms of positive worth to society any day. Oh yeah? Like all those mechanical engineers who design and build bombs all day? Real worthwhile contribution there, right? Or should you just drop your bullshit attitude and accept this is an imperfect world that needs methods o…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 06:47 PM
1

You're a joke. You're only interested in standing on some pseudo-moral soap box. I'm really sorry you don't get to live in some Utopia, but you probably work for a pay check the same as almost anyone else, all the while throwing stones at people simply performing a role in our society. Crawl off your cross, it's unbecoming.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 05:34 PM
1

You mean to say people take jobs for a paycheck?! GET OUT! I thought we lived in a land of rainbows, unicorns and candy canes, where everyone got to work only the jobs they found to be the most spiritually rewarding. The way our legal system works is through adversarial relationships. Even people who are in the right will lose if they fail to prove their case, and the other side will not ever advance the middle ground. You can't blame a lawyer for the nature of our legal system, nor should you b…
/r/MensRights12/03/15 03:16 AM
1

The lawyers are there to represent the interests of their clients. They aren't legislators, they merely operate within an already established area of law. I disagree with a number of facets of the current laws regarding intellectual property, but I certainly don't blame the lawyers for that landscape. This is all just misdirected anger and ad hoc arguments to justify your moral chest-thumping.
/r/MensRights12/03/15 01:53 AM
0

What were you saying? Do you shy away from learning anything?
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:38 AM
7

Patent clerks are different, still. Being a patent attorney requires passing two bars, one of which requires technical proficiency in sciences. It's really tough. Furthermore, they aren't patent trolls. Patent trolls are private people who file a bunch of patents they intend to sit on to collect rents, instead of actually developing the idea itself, and blocking people who wish to develop the idea later. Bill Gates is one of the largest patent trolls, and he does this because he has a great idea…
/r/MensRights10/03/15 12:52 AM
4

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. The lawyers aren't usually the patent trolls. Do you even know what "patent troll" means?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 10:57 PM
20

You think being a patent attorney is some default path for the lazy?
/r/MensRights09/03/15 05:32 PM
1

Then why not not clarify that your quotation marks weren't meant to suggest the word was being misused, as it would otherwise indicate? Why write this: "I figured that's what you meant, but I have this weird thing where I double check with people to make sure I understand them correctly. fuck me, right ?" instead? I'm starting to get the impression that English isn't your native language.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 08:03 PM
1

Then why pretend you were catching flack for wanting clarity, and not the very isolated thing I mentioned? Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:46 PM
2

You said "fuck me, right?" following some bit about seeking clarity. And I corrected that. I take issue with someone wanting clarification, or further explication. I DO, however, take issue with someone taking a shitty tone. Any combativeness you may have perceived was strictly in response to your apparent tone.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:42 PM
2

No, fuck you for using douchey little quotes around "really" as though I was making some unfair observation. I have no problem explaining a comment of mine. But I will respond sharply to any condescending tone.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 06:57 PM
3

I think I get what you're saying...that if those feminists "really" cared, they'd be covering it on their own? Was that not obvious? If feminism gave any shit at all about equality, the divorce proceedings, including alimony and custody rights, would be on the forefront of issues today. But it isn't. Not at all. And whenever it does come up, it's always presented as "women don't want to be stuck with children, LOL! how is that equal?" So spare me your bullshit douche-quotes, it's simply not on a…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 06:07 PM
3

And yet, they all had to go to an MRA forum to post that?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 05:02 PM
7

I'm wondering where all those feminists are who claim that they hold the banner for equality more than any other group. Why aren't they praising this decision?
/r/MensRights23/02/15 09:45 PM
19

she'd be repaying him for 24 years. ftfy.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 09:44 PM
8

It shouldn't matter. Adults aren't supposed to have sex with children, irrespective of the children's desires and behavior.
/r/MensRights19/02/15 11:24 PM
16

Entitled hamplanet SJW tries to start shit all to play the victim card and ends up on the losing end. I like this.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/01/15 08:32 PM
0

Or the sample size is so small that this rate is not anomalous or statistically significant.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 07:41 PM
1

I went out and I'm back for the night. I'm not still going, I started up again. And you still sound like someone from SRS with this "u r a troll" pseudo-intellectual bullshit. But whatever, I get it, you can't hang and this is just your method of deflection.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 07:06 AM
1

You sound like someone from SRS.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 06:36 AM
0

I was trying to sympathize with you ... whatever.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:14 AM
0

It must suck being stupid. I'm sorry you got have to deal with that, honest.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 02:09 AM
1

You have nothing worth saying. If you thought you could bust me up, you would.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 01:58 AM
0

Do you understand how an IQ is calculated? Also, judges do intervene, though it usually requires the other side to object. In any event, when both sides are working very hard, the jurors just have to shoulder some blame for buying the bad reasoning over the good reasoning. But then again, here you are, a person speaking with a tone of authority on several issues you're pretty much flatly ignorant on.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:57 PM
0

Which one of knows more lawyers? Do you work in the legal field?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 06:23 AM
2

They are very clearly the most visible. Combine that with a confirmation bias that every time you hear about a lawyer, it seems shitty, and there's the general view that most lawyers suck. And as far as outrageous outcomes to trials, whether it's criminal or civil, if it was a jury trial, ultimately, the jury is the group that got swayed by some horrible reasoning, or made some outrageous award. But no one talks about scumbag juries. O.J. Simpson got away with murder not because he hired those l…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:28 AM
1

Good lawyers aren't the exception. Scumbags are the exception.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 05:10 AM
3

Dude, almost everyone I work with is on a federal grant helping people too poor to afford a lawyer. I know very few scummy lawyers, and I hate them way more than you do.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:45 AM
3

That was tough to watch while eating. Also, this is a strange sub to post that in.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:17 AM
3

Washoe District Chief Judge David Hardy, it's right there in the article.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:37 PM
2

Incorrect.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 03:47 PM
0

That's not at all what I said. My point is that I want language to be effective. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand what language is, but I'm not suggesting anything controversial.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:52 AM
1

I think that usage of the word is archaic in the sense that it's not what people typically mean when they say "man." I never said gender roles are archaic. I'm really not interested in talking with you about anything anymore. You're reading comprehension is very poor, and I have to go over what I say repeatedly, despite using clear and plain language.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:52 AM
2

That's not a definition, that's a criteria. Do you understand the difference? The definition of a man is a social construct. I understand it quite well in this society, but that changes depending on the context, depending on the society. They each get to have their own conception of what being a man means. I don't think it means all that much here, unless we're going to talk about traditional gender roles, but that would be an archaic usage of the term.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 07:06 AM
1

How many usages of the noun "duck" can you come up with? Exactly. Your logic is weak. "Man" doesn't mean to most people what it apparently means to you. My criteria for "man" changes in the given context, but I almost never use it to identify sex, almost always gender, with a few exceptions for when I want to degrade someone for not being a "real man" as one of the highest insults I will resort to when I'm trying to hurt someone. If someone identifies as a man, then I will treat them as such. It…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:59 AM
0

You're very bad at identifying logical fallacies. You should give it up.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:57 AM
-1

Explain your issue with Ledbetter v Goodyear, I can probably go ahead and dismiss all of them right here. I doubt very much that you have any grievance over that decision which I haven't anticipated and for which I am ill-equipped to rebut.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:54 AM
0

What's the ratio of on-the-job men to women fatalities? Something seems off to me if more men are killed on the job each year than women. Do you really want to take that line? That there shouldn't ever be any differences in rates of incidence between men and women? Don't be a dummy, use your brain.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:50 AM
2

Reread what I said, only a little more carefully. Additionally, your analogy is weak, and faulty.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:36 AM
4

Clearly there's a shift in meaning going on. "Man" has several definitions and meaning. It can be a term for gender, a term for sex, a term denoting maturity, a term for self-identification or a term describing behavior. I think your biggest problem is that the most common usage is the social conception, and that means that anyone who identifies as a man is a man. That's not to say they are male, either by sex or gender. But what's wrong with that? I don't personally care to make manhood somethi…
/r/MensRights08/02/12 06:19 AM
2

It's no different with rape, either. There's just a social pass that whenever the topic comes up, saying anything critical about women on the subject is grounds for capital punishment. Can women do things to reduce the chances of being raped? Absolutely, 100% yes.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 05:47 AM
2

Sure, morally, but practically you'd be the one watching a couple of bloody people drive away in the back of a cop car.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 05:12 AM
1

I wouldn't. But if you were a real sadistic sumabitch, you could take advantage of their petty zeal.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 04:12 AM
1

It really depends, if the people are large men, not many, two or even one alone would be an intimidating presence. If the OP is a small individual, fewer women. Just think about what it would take for the average person to feel outnumbered and threatened by their aggressive presence. I don't know the facts, but I'm sure he could have goaded them into getting physical, and then retaliated in a serious manner that would have been completely within self-defense. Call those women nasty names, if the…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:42 AM
1

Legally, these are grey lines. IF someone attacks you, then they cannot claim that you attacked them until they have made a "full retreat," meaning that backing up and shouting to please stop isn't enough. They must completely leave your vicinity, or whatever it takes to constitute a full retreat under the relevant common law. It would be hard to say that there wasn't ever a real threat if there is a gang around you, and in that scenario, even a little tugging/pushing/grabbing would set alarms o…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:10 AM
-4

Lemme guess, you're catholic.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:40 AM
1

Sure, but if there's a mob around you, that line gets substantially further away. Look, the point here is not to have an excuse to hurt someone, but that in society, people aren't allowed to touch you and attempt to control you. If they try, you get to be very violent before it becomes excessive because we value volition and the freedom to be left alone very much. And I see a lot of value in this warrant for asymmetrical responses. We're allowed to remind people that when they are the instigator…
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:01 AM
17

Because your college experience must be everyone's college experience? Maybe he goes to a very small college, maybe these are people roughly within his social circle and word got around. Why are you so quickly jumping to any conclusion you can think of to chastise this guy?
/r/MensRights12/12/11 10:59 PM
0

I would just ignore them completely and carry on with my business, and if anyone tried to physically restrain me, I would flip the fuck out. Really, once someone lays their hands on you or touches you as an aggressor and initiator, it's pretty much open season. You can be fairly violent with impunity, press charges or both. I recommend both. Completely up to you. Especially if there's a mob of people surrounding you, that's already assault alone, but it can also be false imprisonment, and a slew…
/r/MensRights12/12/11 10:56 PM
4

You do have legal rights, if she goes through with the pregnancy she cannot keep you out of the kid's life, and just because you will be in the kid's life does mean that you two will be together. I would make sure she knows exactly what keeping the child to term means. Additionally, you should calmly tell her how you feel that she deceived you, and that this all feels very unfair that she has so much control over your future without even discussing this over with you.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:40 PM
2

I'm not trolling, I'm interpreting this differently. I said I don't think it promotes domestic violence, or did you miss that part?
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:17 PM
1

I got something different, I got that sometimes reality is harsh, but it's up to us to decide if we're gonna let a cruel world break us, or if we're going to choose to endure. Some people are violent, and rarely are there totally innocent victims. If you know who you're around, know what they're capable of, and remain not only in harm's way but in any way provoke or instigate an attack, you should at least understand your own role. I see that last guy's position as being self-empowering in a sen…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 09:36 AM
1

I fail to see how this is a response to anything that's been said. This mentality just strikes me as petty. It's a broad generalization, I can only assume you're trying to get as many downvotes as possible.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 07:41 PM
8

This should not be getting downvoted. The problem isn't women, the problem is that woman(as well as any other women who think she was in the right) and a system which allows her to pull that bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:21 AM
1

I think your biggest problem is that your approach presupposes what sort of data and research will be out there. This is probably also throwing off how you're searching through journals. Start with a broader search for any literature that attempts to explain why there is a gender split, or any data that shows this. Just as an illustration, there could be a feminist author who wants to suggest that the education system is fine, but contains some admission that is useful for your point.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:33 PM
-1

Wow, you have no idea how law school works. Amazing coming from someone who never went to law school! A contract doesn't have to be valid or binding to provide weight to a side. I would rather show up to a court room with an invalid document over nothing at all. I'd rather show up to court with a mountain of evidence and an invalid signed document than a mountain of evidence and no signed invalid document. Beyond that, lawyers tend to be pretty specialized outside of the very basic areas, of whi…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 07:53 AM
-1

Dude, show me where I said any agreements regarding custody were binding. I didn't. But can you earnestly tell me that showing up in court with an agreement signed by the opposition conceding the desired outcome would put someone in a worse position than showing up to court without such a document? The cite was intended to show that a prenuptial agreement isn't solely concerned with assets, which is what previous dude claimed.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 07:49 AM
0

You're still wrong about the majority of things you've asserted. The world doesn't work with nice little rounded figures. I am 100% positive that the success rate for men in family court is not 15%. I know this because that number is just too nice, and the number of divorces in this country is too high. Prenuptial agreements aren't limited to just assets, smart guy. It's a broader category of contracts that are created prior marriage. Jesus christ, even a wikipedia search would tell you that muc…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:49 PM
-1

So then what IS your point? That you CAN do things, though they aren't always effective? Because that isn't what you said. You said "there's nothing you can do about it." Would you like to retract that position, rescind the statement, admit that you were wrong? You say it's impossible to get prenuptial agreements, why? It's not impossible, you're either lying or being willfully ignorant. It's not only possible, but in a world with court's that are slanted in the way you describe(though I doubt y…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:09 PM
-5

You're about as interesting as reading casebooks. You're obviously not interested in actually discussing this. This is a world of risk, merely because you cannot control risk with absolute certainty does not mean you should give up protecting yourself or taking preventative steps. A contract will not tie the court's hands, no one ever said that. But YOU said that there's nothing I can do about it. And that's still wrong. I can do things about it. I can take steps that can have an impact. That's …
/r/MensRights20/06/11 07:34 PM
-5

Sorry, any contract is moot in the eyes of a court? This is patently false. If the trial court says this, the appeals court will not. Yeah, bro, I'm just some idiot talking out of his ass. Law school didn't teach me a thing about how courts and the legal system work. Look, I get it, you all want to jump on me with both feet because you're really into this group mentality thing. Don't worry about it, I remember not having confidence to stand on my own, but then I turned 14 and things began to cha…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:08 PM
0

You called me an idiot for expressing my opinion. It has a lot to do with what you meant. You're calling me an idiot for the views I hold, nothing else.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:59 PM
-7

You're wrong. There's all sorts of stuff I can do about it. Don't stick your dick in crazy, bro. Learn the pitfalls of the legal system BEFORE you're in a situation that might lead you into it. Contract around it. Get her to sign a contract from the outset that describes custody in the event of divorce. If you're as smart as you think you are, you would look for solutions, not excuses.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:51 PM
-6

I promise you that no one shits on me. AND, here's the kicker, I don't piss and moan when I see pictures of shirts on the internet.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:34 PM
-2

You're asking who I am to have an opinion? Did you even think about the content of this post before clicking submit?
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:33 PM
-5

No, YOUR value as a father stops at your wallet because that's your perception and inability to endure. I'm sorry that you're not strong enough to stand up for yourself and what you believe in the face of social pressure. I truly think it's tragic. I, on the other hand, can be exactly the father I choose to be: strong, nurturing, guiding, loving and helpful. Nothing will ever shame me from being exactly that.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:32 PM
-8

Well, I can get behind that. All the ideals and elegant theories in the world don't make a lick of difference if we can't accept the reality, whatever that may be, and compromise where need be to put those ideals into practice. In order to advance, we need perspective. How the hell can you expect to find your way to the future if you don't know where you stand today?
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:21 AM
-5

Sorry, I don't understand your point here. I'm just having trouble following your writing, is all. Not saying I disagree with you, just can't tell what point you're trying to make. I will reread it in the morning, but I doubt I will change my mind that this is ambiguous, to say the least.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:11 AM
-4

Do you honestly think I'm an idiot for expressing my opinions? I'm never going to give into group thinking. Not once, not ever. ONLY if I agree with someone or some position will I support it. That's how intelligent people operate. I will not lend you my name, strength, reputation or legitimacy unless I agree with you. If you think that makes me an idiot, then I am proudly an idiot based on your criteria.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:01 AM
-9

Because I didn't find these pictures of worthless shirts, and I wouldn't have had such an over reaction to them?
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:25 AM
-6

Nah, that's not true.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:25 AM
-20

Give up what? Pussies and failures exist in every generation. Don't judge an entire generation from a small sample of the weak and unmotivated. To me, being a man means be able to overcome adversity. If they can't overcome a stupid shirt design, then fuck em. I would be ashamed to have raised a son who was defeated by an idiot's fashion choice and comic sans. Let me add to that, I would be ashamed to have raised a son who was defeated by society at large. Society says you're worthless? AND YOU B…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:06 AM
-5

So what's the point of this? Just some circle jerk hypothetical? Not to sound shitty, but I would rather mens rights issues be about the real tangible stuff. And I don't wanna hear some crap about how this is all part of the social perception that contributes to the inequities in the blah blah blah. This is a non-issue. Men are being imprisoned and their lives are destroyed from false rape claims, even when exonerated, and persecuted from being identified merely because the description was "male…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:03 AM
1

I can't help but to get a sick sense of satisfaction from this. You reap what you sow. I'm just so desensitized to feeling bad for people who expose themselves to the entire group. Anyone who is only interested in the better treatment of their group will do almost anything to ensure that they get what they want. I'm just not at all sympathetic to a male-feminist getting this sort of treatment. It's wrong, I know, but I don't care about them enough to lift a finger beyond supporting the system th…
/r/MensRights16/05/11 09:35 PM
5

Is this actually surprising to anyone? To be honest, I thought more people would be cheering the woman on. It's just how this society is structured.
/r/MensRights17/04/11 11:23 PM
-2

Yeah, but my dick isn't in my ass. HEY-OOOOOOO Look, I get it, you don't like alpha males, and you hate it even more when they are making solid points against your small world view. So, you have my sympathy.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 06:10 PM
-3

Don't hate just cause I got a dick and muscles.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:57 PM
-5

Stay classy.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:43 PM
2

Like me? Exactly what sort of guy am I?
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:33 PM
2

Well, then I envy your innocence and naivety.
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:29 PM
0

Yes, I'm highly confident that the extent of your action would involve a cell phone and nasty looks. What else could you do? What tools do you have to stop such an attack? He better not fight back because fighting back is bad? Are you serious? So should a woman have to reason with her attacker before struggling and resisting? Don't be a dummy. So now you say that a man shouldn't fight back if he's being attacked by a woman. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that?
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:13 PM
3

Would you do anything if you saw a man being mugged or beaten in an alley? Don't lie. You place more weight on female pain and suffering, and like most feminists see male suffering as just a fact of life. That's the gender role that I've never seen a single self-labeled feminist even bat an eye at. It's part of being a man to be attacked for minor misunderstandings. But if a woman strikes a man, he better not hit back. Right?
/r/MensRights26/03/11 05:08 PM
2

Yeah, I was playing it right back. I knew exactly what you were doing. I quoted the same bit in my reply.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:33 AM
3

ugh, ya ruined ma day!
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:27 AM
5

It's not like you can hurt my feelings by pointing out that I am a member of the most successful group in human history. Cracker? Psssh, whatevs!
/r/MensRights28/02/11 01:54 AM
-1

You're just so clever!
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:12 PM
-2

Feel free to think whatever you want, I've already resigned myself to accept that there are lots of dumb people out there who radically over-estimate their knowledge on any given topic, or in your case every given topic. You've reliably made logical fallacies and demonstrated a poor understanding of discourse and substance. Good day, sir.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:09 AM
0

It's not my job or responsibility to educate you on either diet, articulation, or philosophy. I think the exchanges have been clear enough that reading them over(perhaps this requires a bit more time and attention to detail for some) will readily resolve your confusions. I don't have the interest or patience to hold your hand and walk you through all the inane bullshit you've said. I don't think you're nearly as stupid as you come across, but those are your words, and I didn't put a single one o…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 03:04 AM
-1

I didn't misunderstand you at all. Maybe you can't articulate for shit?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:39 AM
1

But can it improve my joke?
/r/MensRights23/02/11 01:35 AM
1

Because someone's genitalia has no impact on my life or joke.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 01:26 AM
0

I don't care.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 01:16 AM
-1

Alright guys, let's not fuck this up. Just let the women keep on thinking that guy has sound advice, and we'll all be better off. Just shut the hell up, and pretend we never saw it.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 12:45 AM
0

I was using your words, not mine. But I guess you can't even follow what you say. I'm not gonna chase down any more rabbit holes, not with someone who has no ability to stay on topic, or back up any claims. If you want any constructive criticism: work on your reading comprehension, logical progression, and stop making retarded claims regarding issues you have ZERO knowledge of.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 12:09 AM
-1

Qualia cannot be described, and so, as an aspect of definition, we cannot talk about qualia? That's patently wrong. Pain is objective now? Pain IS A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. You know, that shit you say cannot be described and thus we cannot talk about it, which you also seem to think is definitional(it's not). You're philosophically weak, and logically inconsistent. I guess if you think qualia is part of poetry, perhaps it would be an inappropriate insertion. But it's not, and it wasn't. Any other…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 06:13 AM
-1

Pardon the upcoming language, it's rather late and you're very very dumb, so I might get nasty here and there. Bear with it, though, you might learn something. Also, I gave you fair warning that I would get progressively abrasive. Just some free sound advice: stop using words you don't understand. Also, you're really shitty at arguing, you have perpetually changed the topic of this debate, and you seem to be continuously wrong on the new lines you persistently adopt. If you want to make a compel…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:54 AM
0

Sorry, at what point did this become a debate over physiology and anatomy? I thought we were talking about what it's LIKE to have a vagina. In case you're slow on the uptake, that means we're talking about the subjective experience which you, and you alone, are privy to(with regards to having YOUR vagina). So again, how the hell can that guy claim to know a single thing about what it's LIKE(again, this is NOT a debate over medical knowledge) to have a vagina? Also, you cannot be serious with thi…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:29 AM
-6

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you a woman? Does he speak on your behalf? He's trying to tell a woman what it's like to have a vagina. How on earth would he have any authority to make those claims? So I read once in a book that the majority of nerve endings in the vagina are concentrated near the opening, so there's like no feeling past that, right? Or could it be that someone likes big dicks or small dicks in a similar way that some men like giant titties or butt sex. Don't be a dummy…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:10 AM
2

I'll second that.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 04:44 AM
-1

Are you really arguing with a woman over what it feels like to have a vagina?
/r/MensRights22/02/11 04:42 AM
-2

If someone breaks into your house, you may have cause to believe you are in imminent danger, sure. Is it in virtue of someone breaking in? Not according to legal history and precedent. Have you read the case laws of your state? I can go look them up for you, I've got access to westlaw, if you want to see where the court comes down. I know that Alabama doesn't agree with you, and I have a very hard time believing that TN would. I know that in most states, you will have a very hard life if you sho…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 06:33 PM
0

You will have to show all of those elements to a court and a jury, just because you feel comfortable asserting shit like you know what you're talking about doesn't mean the jury will listen, or that the judge will even allow your arguments. Knowing exactly what you're allowed to do without being stubborn and acting like a know-it-all is only in your own interest. It's sound advice, take it or leave, doesn't matter to me if you get thrown in prison.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 06:10 PM
-1

Yeah, it says you can stand your ground if you have cause to believe you are in imminent danger, as determined by a reasonable man standard. This does not mean that simply walking into a house that isn't your own and one where you were not invited means someone gets to shoot you in the head. Your boorish understanding of the law, while amusing, is ultimately futile. Also, a quick little lesson on law, there are two aspects to any law, what the statute says and how the courts interpret it. What d…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 06:03 PM
-1

Is that really the point you want to argue? The substance is that there will be times when deadly force is not needed on any level, and I don't want people thinking that they have a chance to execute someone just because there is this over-broad law on the books. Our laws are already clear on this, so we don't have to debate it. You do NOT have the right to kill someone merely in virtue of them entering your home without consent or authority, even if they had to force the door open. Those criter…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 05:41 PM
3

Oh, I absolutely agree that deadly force should be on the table when there is a home invasion. And the times when intentions do matter are few and far between, but there are those times, and I don't want a rule that states "any unauthorized home entry can be met with deadly force." I think it's too broad.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 05:36 PM
5

totally regardless of intentions? What if it was a drunk neighbor who mistook your house for his, and you find him asleep on the sofa. It's ok to shoot him execution style? Surely the intentions matter on some level.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 03:28 PM
2

I'm trying to be obvious, but I'm also serious. The approach is for women to use their sexuality to get free drinks. I buy my buddies drinks all the time because we all have fun together, not because I expect one of them to toss me off out back. These tactics accomplish nothing more than social isolation and reinforce the gender tensions. But if they want the social relationship between the genders to be adversarial, they may want to take stock first.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:25 AM
-18

Why do you care that women are trying to mobilize? The PUA creeps are light years ahead of them, and far more organized. The women in bars looking for men to buy them drinks have already lost to the PUA. Beyond that, women get paid less than men for working similar jobs, they have vastly inferior medical research for their gender specific health-issues. No one takes them serious, and the largest source of corporate oppression for women is other women. Women are raped way more often than men, and…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 06:41 AM
3

Yup.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 02:19 AM
2

Is anyone surprised by this mentality? Men are considered punching bags by women. I guess men are so big and strong and women are so small that there's no way it could be painful, not if the guy is a REAL man. Small thinking from small minds, no surprises.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 01:57 AM
1

These are not novel results. Behavioral economists and happiness researchers have known for years that choice tends to produce regret and remorse. If you make a decision, pretend that it's final and there's no going back, you will be happier.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 12:16 AM
1

I think the idea is that rape rarely comes with lots of very compelling evidence. If there is compelling evidence, then they are a victim of that crime, like battery or attempted murder, etc. I don't know statistics or have any data, though I would anticipate that a large number of rapes are done with relatively little physical injury, at least when compared with other violent crimes. But I agree with you, principally, that the terminology shouldn't lend itself to either side before the trial st…
/r/MensRights07/02/11 03:25 AM
2

If the genders were reversed? I wouldn't want to high five the guy?
/r/MensRights06/02/11 05:07 PM
16

Reveling lies is going to destroy the family, but women lying about the real father is ok since the men don't know. And this is from an argument of morality? What a joke.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 05:05 PM
2

Sorry you don't how to argue, and you're wrong.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 01:30 AM
2

You're an absolute joke. The sentence is saying that this isn't a statutory issue, and I'm telling you to get over being wrong. This is what quoting in context looks like: "I'm just saying that the issue isn't a matter of statutes, that's just the way it is, brah." I'm not telling you to get over an injustice, I'm telling you to get past this idea that the injustice is contained in the statutes. It simply isn't. That article is cherry picking the law to make it looks like there's some systematic…
/r/MensRights04/02/11 01:15 AM
1

Yeah, I did read the original article, and the article I read mostly talked about the language of the statutes that define rape as being a male perpetrator and a female victim, as though it's not illegal for a woman to rape a man. That's patently and demonstrably false. Did YOU read the article? Do you know jackshit about laws and how they work? Do you have any context in this matter? If the victim of a crime feels compelled to remain silent, that's a separate issue. I think it's an issue that s…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 09:56 PM
1

You're stupid, and only interested in mischaracertizing what I said. It's CLEARLY illegal to rape a man, even if you're a woman. I don't know how police and courts will respond to these laws, that's a separate issue.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 09:23 PM
1

That's simply not true, not in any state I know of. It's just a different statute. Perhaps the legal system treats these differently, and men, as a matter of fact, are treated with less care by the legal system when it comes to issues of rape. But it's not because no one bothered writing up a law for it. It's just not true. I'm not saying that men are treated equally at other levels, or that a man could expect the same degree of outrage for a similar transgression, I'm just saying that there are…
/r/MensRights03/02/11 09:22 PM
0

I'm assuming this is about how rape definitions specify gender. There are rape statutes in almost every state for both men and women. Sometimes they receive different names, but that's rare. In either case, it's equally as illegal to rape a man, I assure you.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 01:36 PM
11

I don't get it. Feminists want to be treated as equals, but they also want to hide behind the force of a government. How are those two compatible? What would any of this do but widen the maw between genders? It just solidifies the resentment on both sides that really shouldn't exist to begin with. How can any of these people even pretend they are interested in a harmonious and equal society when they are actively created dissonance?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 04:23 AM
3

Yeah, we're pretty awesome.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 12:15 AM
1

What exactly is an ad hominem attack? In your own words, please.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 11:02 PM
-2

Pardon? So you admit that you misread what I wrote, and then go on to say that I misread what you wrote . . . ok. Again, work on your reading comprehension, brah.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:38 AM
2

So here's the deal. you haven't backed-up a single point. You've just said that my positions lead to such and such without making any substantial connections or supporting arguments. Your points aren't the issue, it's the reasoning that you're asking me to either consider or rebuke. I cannot do that when you do not provide it. If you only give me unsupported assertions, it's no more effective than saying "nu-huh." The language I've used is in tandem with the arguments I've provided. It's nice th…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:35 AM
7

That's a very compelling response. Thank you for your insightful input.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:17 AM
-2

Awesome reading comprehension. Keep up the good work.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:16 AM
5

Abortion: operation is principally done to the mother with consent. Circumcision: the operation is SOLELY done to the child without any consent. Nope, no difference there at all. Also, the non-sentient fetus is not injured for life, there is no life to be injured. The baby that has been born will be changed by this decision for a life-time. A fetus is not sentient, that's not even debatable. You almost sound like a pro-lifer. Fine, whatever. Think whatever you want, but don't invent facts just b…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:09 AM
5

"It's not an issue for me, so it shouldn't be an issue for anyone else." Is this an argument you want to sign off on?
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:51 AM
5

Do you think an abortion is for no medical reason? Are you honestly having trouble distinguishing circumcision from abortion? An abortion involves the mother, who is making the decision. As an unfortunate consequence, there is a non-sentient organism effected by this decision. But there's no way you can say an abortion does not involve consent. And there IS a medical purpose for an abortion, to stop a pregnancy. If you're a supporter of personal decision, how could you support unnecessary surger…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 07:45 AM
12

They aren't in plastics, they are medical doctors who took an oath not to injure people. My friends are morally opposed to circumcising a baby because they think that it is an act of injuring a patient for no medical reason. I know this because I convinced them that this was the case. I hope a doctor would be just as opposed to performing any unnecessary surgery, especially those without consent of the patient, that is likely to injure the patient.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 06:14 AM
11

You're not an apathetic person, you just don't care. Did I get that part right? No one is saying that having your foreskin removed will destroy your life. Having several toes removed won't destroy your life, either. Not being able to speak poorly of the government won't destroy your life(provided you don't speak poorly of the government). Hell, there are all sorts of fucked up things people can endure and continue on a normal life. I can't imagine anyone thinking that's the issue. The point here…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 05:42 AM
16

That's great that you don't care. I'd like to go on the record as saying "it doesn't make any difference at all whether you care." If you're cool with strangers taking parts of your body without your permission, rock on. Your apathy has zero impact on the issue. You say it works just fine, but you have fewer nerve endings in your dick as a result. Sex could feel even better than it does now. But that's not an issue for some people. It's a big fucking issue for me. I appreciate sex and I'm not in…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 05:23 AM
9

Did someone cut up your dick, brah?
/r/MensRights31/01/11 05:13 AM
27

Lots of people try to diminish and marginalize male circumcision. It's either totally acceptable since society doesn't pay much attention to it, or it's just the setup for a dick-joke followed by snickering. It's disgusting and barbaric. An adult who mutilates a child's body and genitals for no good reason should be ashamed, and I would say imprisoned. There are no medical advantages, no hygienic considerations(not if you regularly use soap and bathe), there's no good reason to do it at all. Vir…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 04:59 AM
1

I would just start laughing and asking them what their problem was. If a girl wants to insult me publicly, I'm just going to be completely dismissive, I won't even treat her as an equal, and make her look very foolish in front of the largest crowd I can. A lot of women have major image issues, just exploit it by making them feel horrible in front of a crowd. It should check their ego, and make them think twice about mistreating people in the future. Same goes with guys if they're really small du…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 01:15 AM
1

Huh?
/r/MensRights31/01/11 01:06 AM
1

So you think this sign is actually discouraging fathers? I think the social trend is already pretty pervasive, vocalizing it like this could be a way to emphasize how stupid the default assumption about men actually is.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 11:13 PM
1

Oh, I see. Thanks.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 11:11 PM
1

who is saying that?
/r/MensRights30/01/11 11:00 PM
5

Yes, you should. Shouldn't he have some control over his future?
/r/MensRights30/01/11 10:59 PM
1

It's already the default, this sign is a departure from that. Why let it go on as a silent assumption? What does this sign do that's offensive? You're acting like one of those 2X'ers who get pissed off by anything, even the stuff that's actually going your way.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 10:30 PM
3

Wait, what is wrong with letting men know they aren't seen as pedophiles as a default social assumption? I quite like that second line.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 05:34 PM
2

Start documenting everything that happens, conversations, remember dates and times of past events and write them down. The more of a timeline you can build and have confidence in, the better. For the love of god, don't assert anything to be true that you are pretty damn certain of.
/r/MensRights28/01/11 12:44 AM
1

Get that bitch served. Seriously, if you have proper service(meaning that someone hand her a notice of legal action), she either has to respond, or will have a default judgment against her. Hire an attorney, this is pretty standard. Most attorneys will listen to your problems and, if they aren't well suited to handle it, they will refer you to someone who can. Just call up a law-firm today, get the ball rolling. They won't charge for a phone call, and it can be quite informative. Just make sure …
/r/MensRights27/01/11 05:49 PM
3

So this kid was guilty before the trial according to damn near everyone on that site? There's no discussion over whether the girl actually made a false rape allegation, just the assumption that the entire legal system is tailored to favor men, which is patently false. It's just absolutely baffling that so many people could be so blind.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:03 AM
1

Sounds like your friends suck.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 03:53 AM
8

Wow, there are people saying that her prosecution is awful? Really?! It's terrible that we don't let people manipulate, abuse and pervert our legal system for personal and petty purposes without any repercussions? I'm fucking shocked that anyone who even pretends to want equality could make such a ridiculous statement. Girl lies about rape to avoid confessing to her parents that she got knocked up on her own accord, is willing to DESTROY a kid's entire life, but it's awful that she suffer any co…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 03:44 AM
1

Uh oh, I didn't read far enough to pick-up on the sarcasm. I just read the idea being promoted and got disgusted with it. Yes, funny article.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 06:17 PM
2

We should all be hypochondriacs! YAY! Look, I don't go to the doctor hardly ever because I take care of myself. I guess women need to see the doctor more often. I have no good reason to suppose this is true other than that it happens that way. But, no other group should subsidize the propensity women have for going to the doctor often. Wanna have periodic check-ups and see that doctor who pokes around inside you a bunch? Be prepared to pay more for your coverage. It's really just that simple.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:42 PM
0

Yeah, it's pretty heinous. But when you're an adult you don't remember any of it, apparently, so I guess it's a-ok. Same could be said about female circumcision, right?
/r/MensRights18/01/11 03:31 AM
0

You didn't watch all those videos?
/r/MensRights18/01/11 03:13 AM
2

I'm totally stealing that last sentence. Pure fucking gold.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 10:50 PM
2

You espouse bullshit, people respond appropriately, they must all be stupid. Nice, niiiiice.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 08:05 PM
-3

LOL, u mad. Sorry your dick got cut-up, brah. But y u mad, dawg? LOL!
/r/MensRights17/01/11 06:41 PM
8

I once made the mistake of bringing up male circumcision in a political science class when the feminist professor was talking about the tragedy of female circumcision, which still goes on in Africa. She also neglected to mention that a large number of African women who were born and raised in the states willfully travel back to Africa just to have the procedure done.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 06:38 PM
5

I thought misandrist was a relatively common expression. Misanthropic, misogynistic, misandristic, everyone should know those three words. They are often quite useful.
/r/MensRights16/01/11 09:13 AM
3

The word for equal treatment is egalitarian. What's wrong with just calling yourself an egalitarian? It's gender-neutral, and doesn't have a ton of baggage.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 10:19 PM
1

You decided to take this discussion out of the realm of a legitimate debate. By pretending that my points are nothing more than ad hominem attacks, you've decided that this topic is no longer worth actual consideration and genuine concern for intellectual exchange. You raised points, I countered them. They weren't issues I pulled out of the air, they were responses to your criticisms. Unless you care to return to a civil and legitimate discussion, I'm done with you.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 09:54 PM
2

Oh, you're insane. Glad we got that out of the way. That post isn't telling anyone not to voice their opinion, it's saying that given an expressed view, the university as an institution still gets to decide how to spend THEIR money. It IS, after all, the university's money, and no longer the students' tuition. They PAID tuition, and that payment has since become the funds of another entity. Demanding that the institution spend that money however a minority faction deems fit IS a form of censorsh…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 09:50 PM
3

Why do you people persist in characterizing this as a debate between whether someone has the right to speak their mind? Show me one post from a non-feminist suggesting that someone shouldn't speak-up or protest or take any of the appropriate channels to address problems. Just one. I can show you lots of posts of feminists clearly supporting censorship because this one comedian makes crude jokes, and how he shouldn't be allowed on a campus as a result. But you can you show me just one where someo…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 02:29 PM
1

You misused a word. Now you know better. Take the lessons when they're free. I was pointing out that the OP only later went on to make the second claim, but that a completely reasonable interpretation of her original post was the former. I don't actually care about Tucker Max, or debating his life/career or anything he's said. I just thought it was odd how you're saying he has nothing to teach anyone, other than a bunch of very useful skills on how to become a published and best-selling author. …
/r/MensRights11/01/11 02:23 PM
2

You should learn what 'salient' means. Salient means noticeable, in these sorts of contexts, or maybe even something like apparent/important. Her points wouldn't be salient unless they were being recalled, or were subpoints for a larger case, and these more salient points are the crux of her position. But it doesn't mean solid or worthwhile, which is how you seem to be using it. Proclaiming something shouldn't happen because I disapprove regardless of other opinions and taking active steps to pr…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 05:58 AM
2

Well, they all seem to think I'm a woman hater. I'm not. I just say the things I think, and I'm a pretty staunch egalitarian. That seems to really piss most of them off(or maybe it's just a few with a number of accounts). I honestly don't get why so many get so pissed off, and the ones who are so hostile have SUCH bad logic and reasoning skills. I'll be damned if I'm gonna get lured into a logic debate in a thread with 20 pissed off feminists looking for more excuses to complain and group-up aga…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 05:40 AM
4

Because a number of the hyper feminists from 2x are going around downvoting my comments all over reddit. It's pretty obvious considering that I've gotten downvoted in MMA subreddit for praising Sakuraba.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 05:17 AM
1

Most of the comments are buried. I think I'm both fairly entertaining and able to offer some worthwhile perspective. I guess having a dick negates all that.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 01:37 AM
5

I thought I had some decent points to make, I guess not!
/r/MensRights11/01/11 01:19 AM
1

Tell that to the guys who were exonerated completely? Ok, I'll get right on that. You're part of the problem that has lead to a system which you think is broken. You take a few token cases and interpret these very rare instances as the typical situation. It isn't. Prosecutors care about their careers just as much as defenders, you think the people who allowed those rape charges to come about didn't suffer any consequences? Bottom line, more guilty people are let free than innocent people are fou…
/r/MensRights02/01/11 09:25 AM
1

The rapist's identity is released during the case so other potential victims can come forward. Rape isn't an easy case for either side, but if there is a serial rapist, I think it's important to increase the chance of conviction. Also, there is a filtering mechanism is any civilized legal system: the prosecution feels there is sufficient evidence to win the case. This typically means there is more than merely an accusation, or there is enough circumstantial evidence that such a testimony is like…
/r/MensRights31/12/10 01:21 PM
2

I disagree. I think the punishment for a false accusation should consider how likely it is to discover the falsity of the claim IN ADDITION to the severity of the crime. As well as any incidental damages/costs resulting from this false claim. The problem here is that it's very unlikely that a false accusation of rape will be discovered as false, there just doesn't tend to be any good evidence against it and a girl can easily create lots of corroborating evidence(like bruising herself or abusing …
/r/MensRights31/12/10 11:00 AM
8

A girl once locked me in her dorm(two way keyed lock), hid the key and said the only way she would let me out was after having sex with her. She was engaged and I was just out of a relationship. I guess I could've tried to kick the door down. But if Kobe Bryant raped that woman, I was raped, too.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 10:00 PM
2

But it's so much harder to disprove a false rape-accusation, provided there was at least consensual sex. I think that when a false claim of rape is discovered the punishment needs to be INCREDIBLY harsh just to put more women on notice as to the penalties for pursuing a fake rape charge. If the punishment is still fairly minor, the chance of being discovered times the potential penalty could still make the phony rape accusation worth while, depending on what the accusers are after. Increase the …
/r/MensRights30/12/10 07:32 PM
1

That's never happened a single time in the history of mankind.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 12:13 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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