TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Iamfivebears Archive

View 0 posts and 13 comments by Iamfivebears 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)
7

It is not a crime to leave home. The police couldn't find him because they had no reason to track him down once he had been cleared of charges, they're not a people-finding organization. It was only when he was once again legally obligated to pay child support that the police had any interest in finding him again. It's a terrible story, but...what about it?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 03:12 PM
3

You and the site both say "a group of doctors" support this cause, but I can't find a list anywhere. The closest thing I can find is that the "President and Chief Executive Officer" is a doctor. Is there a list anywhere of doctors who are actually a part of this...I don't know what to call it, "movement" I guess?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:43 AM
5

To be fair, that phrase is largely used to defend bullshit.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 04:56 AM
1

It's because of Judicial Review that rulings like Brown v The Board of Education occur. The SCOTUS doesn't have a blank check to make laws, they just have the ability to slap down lawmakers when they overstep.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:05 AM
2

It comes down to two simple things. The first is that not all "ism's" are treated the same way. Discrimination based on race is treated with "strict scrutiny," meaning you have to prove a "compelling governmental interest" for something to be justified in the face of strict scrutiny. Something like age discrimination has an incredibly low level of scrutiny, so it's easier to evade. The second thing to remember is that if the law DOES serve that state interest, be it "important" or "compelling" a…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 11:38 PM
2

You have to remember that the case of women being excluded from the draft hasn't gone before the Court in years. When it last did, it WAS an important state interest to protect the "fairer sex". Actually, it's also important to point out that the quasi-suspect tier was instituted sometime in the 70s, meaning that before that, discrimination based on gender was pretty-much acceptable.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 11:31 PM
10

I can give some perspective based on how the SCOTUS examines this kind of thing. The court, when determining if a law is unconstitutional, will assign levels of scrutiny to different kinds of examination. Sex is in the middle tier, known as the "quasi-suspect" tier. In order for a law that discriminates based on sex to be considered valid, it has to prove that the law serves an "important state interest." Having a standing army apparently serves that interest. So while it MIGHT be sexist, it's s…
/r/MensRights09/05/11 05:21 PM
4

While I agree with many of your points, I feel it necessary to point out that the section labeled "Reality" is just a series of assumptions and generalizations. When you say things like, "we want relationships built on trust" you presume to speak for all trans people. I don't really see any difference between the "Reality" and "Hypothetical" sections, as they both just present ideas based on the supposition that all trans people feel the same way you do.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 03:10 PM
0

If they're both in the dark, then I agree, there's nothing malicious going on. My point was more that, if the Jew knows that being Jewish would affect the anti-semite's decision, and they withhold that info, they are lying by omission, which is wrong. Let me give you the opposite, to paint a less sympathetic picture. Let's say there's a Jewish girl, and a guy who is a member of the DOC. If the guy wants to sleep with the girl, and he doesn't tell her about his membership because he knows that it…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:22 PM
3

Because you think it would affect their decision. Lying to someone about ANYTHING because you feel it will make them more or less likely to sleep with you is WRONG.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:18 PM
7

Don't listen to venividiviciii, not everyone is like that. The point is that if you withhold information from someone that you think would impact their decision. It's wrong. It's not up to you to decide, "well it SHOULDN'T be a big deal," it's up to them to decide how big a deal it is. If someone is anti-semitic, and you withhold your Jewish heritage, that's wrong. It's VERY wrong that they are anti-semitic, but it's also VERY wrong that you withheld that info from them, thinking it might change…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:28 AM
-1

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights, this is just an example of a woman doing something wrong. This is not the kind of thing this subreddit is trying to further.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 01:20 PM
5

This is the best possible action you can take. Even a simple "I'm sorry for what is happening to your daughter, but it is not my fault" will look like you're being condescending. There is probably nothing you can say that she will not use as an excuse to get even more mad at you. If, in a few months, you restore contact with the girl, maybe ask her to talk to her mother for you. But really, the best thing you can do is stay out of the mother's way. Be the bigger man, as it were.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:05 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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