TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Ipleadbeethovens5th Archive

View 1 post and 271 comments by Ipleadbeethovens5th 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)
3

Ipleadbeethovens5th/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:52 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

OP is definitely conservative. Spouting off about well defined terms without a lick of understanding what the terms actually mean.
/r/MensRights28/12/25 02:13 AM
1

Spacey, and it's a half witch hunt, half the age of the kid. It's sexual misconduct not assault. But there is also worse allegations then that.
/r/MensRights22/11/17 05:36 PM
14

is female genital mutilation less cruel if they use modern anesthesia?
/r/MensRights22/11/17 05:29 PM
2

Inwood (very top of Manhattan) has a large Dominican population, and catcalling is part of the fabiric there.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 02:09 AM
3

I like Buffy and its feminist, in a good way.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 06:33 AM
3

Buffy the vampire slayer is feminist and it's pretty much amazing. Toni Morrison is fucking amazing writer. This movie still looks like shit on a stick.
/r/MensRights10/07/16 06:32 AM
1

He's never seen a strawman he doesn't appreciate, nor a intrinsic bias he doesn't believe in. Are you sure he's not a feminist?
/r/MensRights05/07/16 01:53 AM
2

When someone steals your $ they are taking your time, and you don't get that back. And they're taking your time. That's your life.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 01:30 AM
2

Properly, is this called poisoning the well?
/r/MensRights17/06/16 01:31 AM
6

Sorry you had no solid indication of red flags or rather what to look for and when to respond immediately. ie leave.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 01:29 AM
-4

You're making that argument, but that doesn't excuse all the lunkheads, who are pegging it as similar in this thread. At 17 i'm not even positive that the guy teacher would get that much worse of a sentence. There's some states where he probably wouldn't get prosecuted.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 01:26 AM
9

Even if you're 17, somebody abusing their position in that way, can leave you Spun in a bad way. You don't know how she chose her victims, they could have been especially vulnerable. That said huge stretch to try and make an equivalent with Brock the rapist, The cases are not similar.
/r/MensRights17/06/16 12:12 AM
2

Oh wow, yesterday the case was dismissed. However when I wrote that it was still going on.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 07:55 PM
2

Wrong, that case and this case are still being adjudicated. Edit: she lost the case yesterday.
/r/MensRights07/04/16 07:53 PM
1

sperm bag, her lawyers are appealing a ruling in a case, the case is on going, there has been no judgment. Judgment is a legal term, like other terms that you do not know the meaning of.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 06:37 AM
1

Shit stain, at no point did I say guilty or not guilty. I said disposed and judgment. There has been no judgment, the case is ongoing and not disposed, maybe just try and learn something once.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 06:28 AM
2

You said she lost the case, which is total utter bullshit. The facts are exactly as I said. She lost a preliminary injunction which was a longshot.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 06:17 AM
1

Maybe you should try learning some basic terminology you fuck face. She's appealing a ruling, for a preliminary injunction. There is no judgment, that comes at the end of the lawsuit. Judges give lots of rulings on procedure. One case could have hundreds or thousands of rulings, you must've watched TV and hear a judge say "overruled", does that mean the case is disposed, everybody go home? No, you less than bright guy, it does not. Next time do your own fucking research, and maybe you will learn…
/r/MensRights05/04/16 06:20 PM
2

If its true, prove it.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 02:26 AM
-1

You guys are so bad at fucking writing headlines! She didn't lose any case. There was a long shot for a preliminary injunction, and she didn't get it. The case is still happening.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 10:46 PM
1

I'm trying to let you know that you're basically saying, "read my mind, identity politics is what I say it is." Your incredible vagueness doesn't let any ideas come through in a clear and succinct fashion.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:28 PM
6

Are you guys retarded? This is obviously fake. You do understand people try to make money getting views, hits etc? Right? Right?
/r/MensRights03/04/16 10:23 PM
5

Yeah, and the death rate of the jobs that women don't choose, is way higher. Accordingly the quality of life factor is also higher for the jobs women do choose. Even with equal careers, women are less likely to put in overtime or make extreme career decisions like moving overseas etc. This affects their earnings potential.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 12:32 PM
1

One, you can't articulate the difference when you're just threw up the term identity politics, I just keep getting these one-off examples trying to see where you stand. I shouldn't have to do that. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2016/03/14/its-official-harvard-law-school-will-scrap-its-slavery-tied-seal Is this identity politics? When Angela Davis pens a book "women race and class", you seem to make some distinction like it's not identity politics.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 03:36 AM
1

Yeah, I keep saying this but your ability to convey your thoughts, really needs some work. You should be able to mix sarcasm in when you actually have definitions that make sense or convey your thoughts.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 10:54 PM
-1

Trump encourages and escalates the situation, The situation happened. Trump called her a liar, And stands by his guy who also says she's a liar. At that point she can rollover or press charges. If you listen to the audio the other reporter saw it, and she didn't know who pulled her, he had to tell her. He also felt that dudes intention was to pull her to the ground. And that almost happened.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 10:39 PM
1

What exactly makes her different, she's a tenured professor in a "good" school. Other people have said that you sound wordy and indistinct. If you have good ideas, you need to be able to convey them.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 10:33 PM
1

Well if I can't easily distinguish the two, how can average person? Your shorthand doesn't seem to be productive in that way. If Hillary Clinton says the trans people should be able to work without being fired indiscriminately, that's a valid statement by a "official" and I imagine that it fits under identity politics.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:00 PM
2

Well I know personally Angela Davis is a lesbian, but when you advocate for abolishing prisons you advocate for men. And thats a major black feminist. I don't think we're that far off in thinking, but when you Lump in everything under the umbrella identity politics, it's a very blurry message. Every single one of those very valid attempts at corrections, can be considered identity politics.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:45 PM
1

I don't really understand, we shouldn't have affirmative-action, the Department of Justice reports on systemic use of black people as walking ATMs for the police and courts? Transsexuals shouldn't be able to address the unique issues that they face with crimes and dis crimination against them?
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:15 PM
1

Agree, in many ways. However, what are you considering identity politics? These movements get subverted so quickly. Angela Davis is a old school feminist, but she fights for prison reform for 4 or 5 decades. She invented the term prison industrial complex, and is very much fighting for men and justice and equality.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 02:02 PM
1

Plea deals are anecdotal, but if they had solid evidence, they probably could've made it worse. It's still silly to take a trend from one data point. Those guys should sue. The hospital has deep pockets.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 05:48 AM
2

There's a lot of misogynists here. It's a shame, because the people who wrote the FAQ are on point. Other people are helpful and insightful too. If you want to blunt a movement, take away rational thought, and make it an echo chamber. That way MRA will evolve into what most people think MRA is/means.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 05:44 AM
-3

Trump also says that she grabbed him, and there is no video of that, she has her phone in one hand, and the other one is in Plainview.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:37 AM
-2

Down voted for the truth.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 01:35 AM
1

There are a couple of vocal ones, and I agree the unique history makes a difference, basically, they have a understanding that most people can never get. Instantly, a trans woman's voice, like a cis woman's, carries farther and faster than a mans, when addressing men's rights. Just another way of society's discounting of real problems men face.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 02:33 AM
3

Well, I suppose you could find that out by watching. And, that's super rude. She looks like a girl in college and she is. I'm sure you must be very convicted that you're correct in your opinion. Lots of people who have those convictions are on the wrong side of history. Happens all the time.
/r/MensRights27/03/16 05:04 AM
6

It's a girl talking about what the people writing for "everyday feminism" put as bios. The exact people who manufacture a lot of content specifically saying that men's rights should not exist.
/r/MensRights26/03/16 10:18 PM
-6

lots of innocent people are behind bars, lots of guilty people walk, but they are not innocent. Youre (again) conflating innocent for the purposes of burden of proof, with actually innocent which is how most people use the word.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 06:16 PM
1

Also, sometime when you're famous, doesn't really help you out.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 09:44 PM
1

Wtf, he could've gone to jail forever, that's what you take away from this?
/r/MensRights24/03/16 09:20 PM
-2

Be ridiculous why don't you? Watch the traffic stop, if you Think that she would've been treated exactly the same had she been a white male, there's no further discussion needed, you are beyond help. I'm sure there's plenty of cops who have never abuse their authority, regardless of race, but that's not the point of discussion. Nor is whether or not white men are subject to police brutality, which they are.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 07:10 PM
0

The point is, The cop would not have done that to a white man, or white woman, and then it just gets worse from there.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 01:41 PM
1

Sandra bland
/r/MensRights24/03/16 01:05 PM
1

I didn't read it, but there are no matches for "boys" in the entire page, and there are no matches for "girls" in the entire page. that's a pretty thin headline.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 03:51 PM
-1

I have appreciated a good deal of the posters here, but the fact that this subgroup attracts such rabid misogyny, is why I am leaving. Women shouldn't have the right to vote, is actually upvoted?
/r/MensRights23/03/16 01:06 PM
1

It's also helpful to first call it an earnings gap, and the distinction between that and a wage gap. I, personally, like to bring up the worker death gap, but I'll tell you, that doesn't actually work out. Most likely because people (of both sexes) don't really empathize strongly if men die.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 12:09 PM
1

Beautifully written, I wish you included sources.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 12:06 PM
3

Girls, you're both pretty!
/r/MensRights23/03/16 12:03 PM
1

Not surprising.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 08:32 PM
2

Because the numbers are pretty much all leading from unlikely to unlikely as hell. Sanders had a longshot, it's pretty much over, for the actual nomination.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:14 AM
2

Lol, that's some solid reasoning.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:10 AM
0

Sorry for calling you a sperm sample. I just posted a link that is an example of what I think high quality men's rights content should be. While I do think this link is relevant, and I abhor the people who made this shit show, it would be nice to have a larger set of well researched topics.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:56 PM
0

Listen up sperm sample, my statement said that it was horrible. Do you have a problem with it being horrible? Do you have a problem with it being manufactured? Because everything I said was true.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:18 PM
1

Fuck wad, you can look it up for yourself.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:12 PM
1

The book covers a bunch of White House generations, The Clintons are not featured.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:10 PM
1

True.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:08 PM
1

Thank you for giving an exact time, the person said nothing worse then she yelled and cursed a lot in the elevator. Of course, the reenactment showed her hitting him, this was not supported in the dialogue. There was absolutely no description of anything physical. I fail to see how supporting crackpot undocumented theories, that claim to have documentation, is beneficial for men's rights. I would be much more supportive of crackpot theories that claim there is no documentation. Once you claim so…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:03 PM
3

From what I can tell this is absolutely forced from above, without any thought of the consequences.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 06:08 PM
6

This is the sort of rational high-quality content that I would love to see more of here.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:31 PM
2

Context: the judge was reading the victim statement. That was not the judges personal opinion or ruling. Can we even get through a short, probably poorly reported article, without playing telephone and messing up the content further? She was put in jail, but she's also mentally ill.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:22 PM
1

Your original statement was female judge sides with female rapist.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:14 PM
0

What the judge is respecting when she is ruling according to the laws and the rights that we have established through law, has absolutely nothing to do with her personal feelings about statutory rape. Or mine. Your argument is specious.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:45 PM
0

I'm sure your reply has everything to do with availability bias and confirmation bias
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:47 PM
1

Dead accurate.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:43 PM
0

The case isn't done yet.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:41 PM
-2

How is this a men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:39 PM
-2

If you want to be accurate, more than likely she will just have to go to a empty room for six or eight hours, that's what they do in New York.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:37 PM
1

And if we don't keep our sources and arguments rational and reality-based, The consequences can be very severe. In the much of the public sphere, MRA and KKK are equally valid. That is to say easily dismissed, fringe elements based on Single issues and hate.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:35 PM
-1

Female judge sides with the rule of law, would actually be an accurate headline.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:27 PM
1

That headline will sell less papers though. This is a shit show, I hope they put her under the jail. Through evidence that they are allowed to use.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 02:26 PM
1

The hormonal birth-control that I am aware of, commonly known as the pill etc., work exactly that way. Just because you can argue it does not mean it is not a crackpot, religious-based single point issue.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 12:09 PM
1

Without going into history, how is this particular judges statement wrong, according to the law.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:58 AM
9

Rights are easy to stand up for when it's popular, when you need them is when you're unpopular.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:56 AM
9

Studio audience usually has TV screen telling them to get up, clap etc. The producer always give them a pump up speech with directions on how to behave. This is a manufactured reaction, but even that it would be manufactured is horrible. And of course the audience still has to go along with it.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:51 AM
3

I would like somebody to explain to me how this thread is currently at 81% upvotes. And thank you, I appreciate it. I think we should all work to have a high signal to noise. It would be awesome if you could come here and see well researched, documented information that supports men's rights. You will have people coming in using every crack pot theory, hoping to get an MRA audience and support.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:36 AM
0

Do you have a problem reading, because you don't have a problem writing :) The first part of my sentence is often times. That is distinctively different than always.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:29 AM
2

I feel the same way when somebody says, "look at this short section of Facebook comments, It totally proves my point, for Trump, Sanders, misandry, misogyny etc. " Luckily, nobody will downvote you for this, because my parent comment it's already below water.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:19 AM
-1

Why is it that this thread has so many positve votes? Bots?
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:04 AM
2

Often times you should, its heuristics.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 10:54 AM
7

They also believe birth-control is murder etc.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 10:53 AM
2

The Constitution didn't anticipate prison industrial complex, mega corporations or even really fucking effective advertising.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:10 AM
0

Good call.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 01:54 AM
1

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/lamp.asp
/r/MensRights21/03/16 01:51 AM
25

If you go to the source, and then the source of the source, you end up with a reporter writing a book, about the White House, and unnamed sources. If this were true, there is no proof, there's nobody with a name willing to say that it's true, so what could anybody anywhere do about it? I'm sorry, to try and make this a part of discussion, as something possible or important is insane. This is not a men's rights issue, this is a conspiracy issue. When I talk about poisoning the well, i'm talking a…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 01:47 AM
1

There's plenty of cases where I can go into an echo chamber or hug box, and be the only person saying thing something rational. I don't see that I've contradicted myself, anybody who says that I think the woman is a hero, or any other attributions other than, possibly rational.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 10:52 PM
1

If you want to be completely unreasoned, and without critical thinking, that can be your thing, and you should probably imitate those who also are without reason, and without critical thinking.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 10:50 PM
1

You ask a stupid amount of leading questions, you shouldn't be surprised if I do not answer them.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 10:48 PM
1

Actually, I made a distinction between pejorative name calling and discrimination. Discrimination does have a definition. You seem to be upping the rhetoric every time too, "killing Jews", "nigger" why would you do that if your argument is solid.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 05:55 PM
1

Discrimination as it applies legally and informally, specifically applies in access to resources or the in the reverse, punitive measures. You seem to think that she had some authority where she could allow or not allow him to do something. We will disagree on that. Now, if you want to look at pejorative statements, take a look at the comments here or YouTube, with The majority of comments with language much worse than fucking white male.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 05:36 PM
1

Your going to be doubting several studies, with published methodologies, and the reason I bring up studies like that, is because there is absolutely only one variable different. Conflating a single variable study with the gender wage gap is pretty crazy. There is a gender wage gap, properly called a gender earnings gap, with possibly 3% due specifically to discrimination. If you said bigoted or insulting, I wouldn't have a problem, discriminatory has a legal definition and common definition.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 01:47 PM
1

words that might hurt your feelings, however that doesn't mean white privilege does not exist. She didn't have any authority, The permission she revoked was symbolic. The worst thing that she can do is hurt your feelings. That's different than discrimination, which affects your material advantage in life. as has been shown in studies, even having an white sounding name with the same exact qualifications, same exact application versus a black name, will net you an increase in callbacks for your a…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 01:04 PM
1

whatever, good luck.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:30 PM
-1

390k, if you follow your link, only covers transport. That's what I call an asshole number. If you think the only deaths matter are the ones where you are actually shipping your cargo, you are an asshole. The worst part of being a slave was not the transport, if you made it past the transport, it was the rest of your life. From your link However, as exact as this information might be, it only goes so far. Much data is missing, either because it was lost or because no records were kept of the ill…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 11:53 AM
2

This is absolutely true that other places had a high, high death rate. However if you died a slave, I would say your life was also given to slavery. One difference, In the US breeding slaves was very important. So important as to possibly be the major economic interest. From the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV. The Importance of Slave-Rearing, p. 68: "But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 11:43 AM
1

It could've gone to you too. you posted sources, and commentary but the answer the to original question was completely avoided.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 04:16 AM
1

Is that in your opinion the worst thing on there or is there something worse?
/r/MensRights20/03/16 03:48 AM
1

What is the worst sentence or sentences you have a problem with? "You're a fucking white man who gets to do whatever he wants to in this space." and immediately after... "So I'm saying no, you do not have permission to walk around videotaping..." This?
/r/MensRights20/03/16 02:58 AM
1

It is a slight, no doubt, there's some cursing in there too. But I see her point, if somebody is there to counter-narrate in the space, you probably should interrupt them. If there patronizing and sarcastic, that might upset you. You might say, hey you're only here to counter narrate. I actually believe in men's rights, there's plenty of cases where men get a fucked up raw deal. But, being white does have some advantages still in this society. You don't believe that, I get it, sure no problem. B…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 02:54 AM
1

So you believe you can take any side of a conversation, edit it, and you need no context for you to understand fully what's going on. I don't see her setting herself as an authority to allow or disallow, but you do. That seems context dependent. We shall agree to disagree.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 02:36 AM
-1

On a personal level, you go to a protest to stir up shit, would you really be that offended? Really? She could've been nicer yes, but without seeing a full non edited account, I reserve the right to not be convinced he didn't provoke her.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 01:53 AM
-2

The equivalent, would be fucking Jewish male, not fucking Jew. The female is not my hero, i'm not sure why you're projecting that. I do not like that it is ignored that he is there with a specific agenda to counter-narrate, the headline is full of shit, and that he can and did edit things to show only what he wanted you to see.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 01:45 AM
1

What exactly is my "what if" here? What if the headline wasn't full of shit?
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:29 AM
1

The top parent comment that you are replying to ask about a source for the two year prison sentence. The two year prison sentence in the headline. That sentence doesn't exist in what you quoted. My message could've gone to the person before, but if you had read through there, you could've simply said I don't see two years in there. The original question is where is the source for two years in prison. Edit: "true facts", well the headline is stated as a fact. Although it is stated as a fact, ther…
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:28 AM
-2

They have their own agenda, I'm sure she's not there being nice, she thinks that she's protesting something to affect change. I personally don't even know what's going on, but I wish people could see that this is not a clear cut case where you are seeing both sides. First off, there's no reporter, this filmer is obviously is trying to spin things very specific direction that they want it to go.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:19 AM
-2

So assuming you're a white male, you would really take it to heart if somebody said fucking white male. OK, good to know.
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:15 AM
-2

What's wrong with me? Could be lots but, is the fact that I point out that there is no reporter here an issue to you? I'm sorry, I am of the opinion that if you use a clearly edited segment, you cannot draw definite conclusions. There is no full transcript, there's no uncut footage. What facts would you like me to address, that she's being unpleasant, that she called him a fucking white male, that she said that him being there was an example of his white privilege? That's on the tape, how would …
/r/MensRights20/03/16 12:13 AM
1

U.K. Doesn't value free speech as much as the US.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:10 PM
0

What exactly did she say that was that bad? "Fucking white male", since it's edited you don't know what he said.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 10:54 PM
-1

Only thing that I admit should be obvious, if you think you saw the whole story, you're an idiot. You're a double idiot if you think anybody there was a reporter.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 10:53 PM
-6

No I'm saying it's stupid to rely on something with a false headline (there's no reporter in this video) And edited to give a fair appraisal of what actually happened. What you watched was a partial story heavily edited, and you should know enough about storytelling and editing to know that you can make a story up in editing. You have no idea what happened, and neither do I. if somebody called me a fucking Asian man, I would not be bent out of shape, sorry. if your white and somebody calls you a…
/r/MensRights19/03/16 10:48 PM
-3

When she asked him to leave please, to go away please, it could be construed that she is acknowledging his right to be there. I know everybody seems to hate her face, but she did say please a lot. There are five edits just when she's talking, by the way. He does a flashing white edit, that may be somewhat disguising the edits.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 07:26 PM
-8

You only know the tone that he showed you, there's 5 edits, just where she's talking, and he cut his responses completely out. Who wrote this headline? he's not a reporter, either.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 07:16 PM
1

well, dude did have an small empire. 115 million is less that one kim kardasian app
/r/MensRights19/03/16 06:00 PM
1

Thank you, I'm always glad to have context. It's difficult to see the signal for the noise here sometimes.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 05:45 PM
-17

I'm saying, what she said did not, at face value, sound absurd, especially given the context. He is there specifically to disrupt/spin their protest, towards his own goals. This was edited to make him look like a good guy. We can agree on that as well. I would just like to see less echo chamber bullshit. The guy is not a reporter, call him a filmmaker if you want, but the headline is bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 05:40 PM
-10

I'd like you to count how many time she says please, Versus how many time she curses. Id also like you to count how many times they cut out showing his response.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 05:21 PM
-11

This is edited. It's designed to show the white male in the best possible light. Your interpretation is your one interpretation, and it may or may not relate to the situation as you were shown it. People do treat each other differently based on race I don't think this is a surprise. Maybe there was some antagonism you didn't see, maybe 20 people interacted with him totally positively, and this is the one that didn't. What standard are you going to hold every single person in a crowd? http://wiki…
/r/MensRights19/03/16 04:45 PM
2

That's why you have individual stalls with doors.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 03:15 PM
1

Sadly, There's lots of examples where /r/mr shows we don't value critical thinking.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 03:11 PM
-33

You can tell by that question, that he was trying to reverse or minimize the validity of the protest, would you agree or disagree?
/r/MensRights19/03/16 03:01 PM
-27

Well, there's a bunch of cuts, so you don't know what else he said. But she's not an authority, I think she's allowed to ask him what his name is. She's allowed to film him. Context might be important, maybe that's a local protest about some local issues. That might be her neighborhood.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:54 PM
-55

You're being disingenuous, what's the next question after she answers?
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:45 PM
-15

What sort of reporter is he? He says, "What would happen if you went to protest in Mexico waiting a US flag around" I actually thought she Possibly was quite rational, depending on the context. If somebody goes into your protest with the express purpose of reversing the message, or putting their own spin on it, why wouldn't you get in their face? If a black guy starts interviewing people and taping them at a Ku Klux Klan rally, he's going to have a hard time. I bet it would be much worse. *And d…
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:44 PM
1

I might not of understood the full extent of his empire, sounds fair I guess.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:33 PM
1

People reliably vote by demographics, I don't think that's going to change this election. That's what has to happen for Trump to win.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 01:08 PM
2

That is really a load of crap, so much indefensible verbiage, I'm sure some of it is even right. Like that's just a bucket full of every possible issue everywhere.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 01:05 PM
1

Clinton and Sanders voted very, very similarly when they were senators together. While I would be happier with sanders, it was a longshot. I don't think Clinton is so far off the mark from sanders as A lot of people.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 01:00 PM
-2

Fuck the daily Mail, can't you find a decent source.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 12:57 PM
1

And if you're racist, internally, maybe that helps you get some of the anger out, that stress release. If you do not treat people differently, and you don't support power structures that are racist, I could care less if you, privately, use Horrible words under certain stressful situations.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 12:11 PM
1

I appreciate both of your posts.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 12:09 PM
3

Sometimes I feel that people here are too quick to make this sub Reddit a FOXNews style hug box, thank you for letting me read something by somebody who gives a shit about the truth.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:44 AM
3

I can't put it any better than that articulate guy, but sometimes people end up on the wrong side of history. right now your thoughts are really probably on the wrong side.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:40 AM
2

I'm concerned that you don't care that the true facts are not reflected in the headline, at all. If you want this sub Reddit to only be an echo chamber of made up crap, or Tumblr style anecdotes, you're not doing men's rights any favors. In fact, "poisoning the well", is a very good way of removing the fangs from a valid movement. Like somebody else just said, by extension, you make the rest of us look like morons.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 11:28 AM
2

Where was two years, I saw 16 weeks, and eight weeks.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:49 AM
1

She pled guilty, and didn't take it to court. That's not usually the way people are "found guilty". You're saying the court doesn't consider pleading guilty as reason to give a lighter sentence? Often times in the US, remorse and the likelihood of repetition are all factors in sentencing. If your contrite, you might get a lighter sentence.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:42 AM
-13

Right, so was he projected to make 2 million a year even when he was 80?
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:39 AM
11

Dude is 64, 50 million still seems like a lot. Anyways. as I understand it, big numbers don't really last on appeal. Gawkers argument, the video is free-speech is pretty insane though.
/r/MensRights19/03/16 02:05 AM
242

115 million, and they haven't even gotten to punitive damages. That's a pretty crazy calculator. For economic and emotional damages.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 11:54 PM
1

If one is a plea deal, and the other goes to trial that makes perfect sense, and they should at least be in the same country. Sentencing is a crapshoot. You need a few numbers to show a trend but if you're showing an anecdote. At least have the other side. Should not be downvoted
/r/MensRights18/03/16 11:50 PM
-5

I think you might be imagining the racism and the sexism, The article clearly states reasons she doesn't have traction. In the headline Resists does not mean you're sexist.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 11:08 PM
2

Being the victim pays off. Not necessarily for real victims who deal with posttraumatic stress. But just like Kesha stands to make millions of dollars, that's probably tens of millions of dollars if she breaks her contract, this girl gets a story that goes viral. She flexes her muscles, and gets a lot of people to care about her issues. She wants people to her inner emotioaml life. I would guess fucking up his life actually doesn't even register or is a tiny little bonus. If you read the origina…
/r/MensRights18/03/16 11:44 AM
3

Do it, don't get caught... You can always write it down as a transcript.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:57 AM
1

It really only makes sense to sue Yale, Slander/libel will never stick, because nobody knows what happened. There's no way that he should have his life fucked up for this.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 12:08 AM
2

She was actually crowing about him being banned from the event that he was Officially supposed to photograph, and maybe even some of the awards there too.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 11:44 PM
7

Well, can you take the point of view that he provided the bathroom, which they chose not to use. Jokingly they kicked him out, at least he took it as a joke. Anybody who is really concerned, would use the bathroom it's got a mirror. There they could have an expectation of privacy. But if you jokingly or seriously kick somebody out and they yell hey it's my room I can just come in, you have no expectation of privacy. Only An idiot would think that they were in a private room after that happened. …
/r/MensRights17/03/16 11:39 PM
1

You just told me I do not have the right to determine if somebody is not guilty or innocent, by my standards.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:36 PM
0

If the case for men's rights is strong, and I think it is, there's no need to make shit up. Like this headline. It's twisted and inaccurate. This case of a police officer doing dirty shit, perfectly sober hopefully, either having sex or raping while his partner watches with a drunk 20-year-old. His defense is that it's consensual. Are you telling me that I cannot have the opinion, "I don't know if he's actually guilty or not?" I have to accept the courts findings. OK that's bizarre. The jury did…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 10:10 PM
1

She was very happy being the aggressor, the post was actually celebrating that he was banned from an event, and other events would follow.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:34 PM
7

As they left, he said, "it's my room I can just come in. You know that right" He opened it violently, as a prank, but it was still a room with two guys and two girls, who were just told hey I can come in here it's my room. She lied so many times. But the worst part is how happy she was that he was banned from doing something he loved. Something that he didn't get paid for, but has been doing for over a decade. Building up the Goodwill to be an official, with staff access.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:26 PM
1

I'm actually trying to help people understand some basic terminology. you seem to believe that a court finding of not guilty = innocent. If the system is working properly, actually guilty people will be set free. They won't be innocent, but the system will find them not guilty. This can happen through incompetent, or simply lack of evidence. That's how it's supposed to be. In this particular case, I don't really know, I know he's guilty of being stupid. But guilty of rape, I have no idea.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 09:22 PM
1

You're correct on the other points though.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 08:58 PM
1

That's another problem with the article headline. Jury could have accepted her word as true, but it may still not meet the burden of reasonable doubt. The jury did not find that she was lying. The jury found they did not have evidence that was beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 08:53 PM
1

You are stretching the legal concept of presumption of innocence, which refers to due process. If Cops catch a homicidal maniac in the act of slashing somebody's throat, and it's captured in hidef, and he signs a confession, that person is still legally presumed innocent. He is legally presumed innocent until the there is a trial judge says guilty, even after that, on appeal, there could still be a verdict of not guilty. That form of the word innocence really only applies to the fact that the bu…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 08:49 PM
1

My only statement, genius, is not guilty and innocent are two different things, they are not equivalent and you should not conflate them like an idiot.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:52 PM
1

I'll throw you some insults, if you want. Asshole, it's a They said/she said case. Neither of us can know whether or not the guy is truly innocent. The only thing we are certain of is he abused his power, and had sex on taxpayer dime, which is a clear violation of ethical boundaries and department rules. Maybe she consented to the blowjob, and said no to the intercourse. That would mean that he raped her. Should he be found guilty, I don't see that there is any evidence, so no, probably the prop…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:50 PM
1

Perhaps you should brush up on law school, innocence and not guilty are not equivalents. You can be innocent and go to jail. There is a project called the innocence Project, that has been tirelessly working for people who the system failed. Using modern DNA Evidence, they show the work of bad prosecution, poor police work and even coercion and lying. Likewise you can be found not guilty, but that doesn't mean you are actually innocent. So how many outcomes that, it's more than two. There goes yo…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:22 PM
1

Not guilty in a court of law.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:17 PM
1

Please cite where I assert he's guilty
/r/MensRights17/03/16 06:09 PM
0

That might apply, except I'm using legal definitions to talk about legal proceedings. You got a lot going on in your head, and it's not really logical, or well-defined. I do trust that you have your heart in the right place.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:39 PM
6

Because of the lies he lost a lot, and That was in one month. the ripple effect could've cost him everything in a niche market. All the time he spent in his craft, all the work building connections, all the money and missed opportunities that went into building his reputation as a photographer, would be poof! Gone, replaced with banning and distrust. The only reason that didn't happen was kept amini DV video from 13 years ago.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:28 PM
38

Whatever you do, don't tip your hand. Don't say you're trying to learn more, don't say you're getting a lawyer, learn as much as you can, but act dumb, really dumb. Also record everything, you can't use all of it depending on your state, but record everything anyways. And don't be a fucking idiot and say you're recording. Act Dumb but lovable. Everything you do from now on is important. Get the best advice you can.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:24 PM
4

Horrible. And very lucky for him, who keeps videos for 13 years.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:22 PM
0

I'm telling you, very simply, the dictionary definition of two terms that you seem to conflate. "Not guilty" and "innocent". I'm not sure what your discipline of study is, but it's hard to have a discussion with people who can't understand some basic legal terminology.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:21 PM
2

I was supposed to post that to the guy before. Maybe he is innocent of rape, I don't know, but it certainly could go either way. It's an abuse of power and stupid, no matter what.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:18 PM
2

Just an expansion of what you were saying, The events were twisted to fit the narrative.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:09 PM
1

Why is this even a hard concept? I don't get it.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:07 PM
1

Your logic does not resemble earth logic.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:06 PM
0

It applies to due process, it's saying he's accused of a crime, but he's not guilty of a crime. Read a book sometimes.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:05 PM
-2

I agree with you, but technically the courts found him not guilty, courts do not prove innocence. This is a foundation of our legal system. We should improve the system, and cops should have greater penalties for criminal activity under the color of law.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:03 PM
1

I will agree with that. It's insane that you can have a he said she said trial, with no recordings or physical evidence and come up with guilty verdict. But that's the world we live in.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 05:00 PM
1

I laid out the facts of that hypothetical case. John Doe did kill somebody he is given the presumption of innocence he is referred to as an alleged killer No matter what the court finds, objectively, he is not innocent, he is a killer. You might not be able to factually "determine" that, but that doesn't make it any less true. Lots of people might not believe he is a killer. But they are wrong. As stated, the fact is that he is a killer. He could be a killer found not guilty, but he will never b…
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:55 PM
1

They are not. Legally they are not. Read a book, pick up a dictionary.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:12 PM
2

Innocent for the purposes of due process. If you're arrested it means cops should have probable cause A crime was committed by you.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:07 PM
1

If John Doe kills somebody, nobody can prove it, or he is found not guilty by reason of technicality, Your logic, which doesn't resemble normal logic, says that the person is innocent. Innocent before proven guilty, is a legal term referring to due process, if everybody was actually innocent why would you need cops, courts or jails. In short, a killer is a killer whether or not he's convicted or she's convicted.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 04:03 PM
2

It's bad to take anecdotes as evidence. It's even worse to twist and fabricate events, just to fit a preconceived narrative.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 01:23 PM
0

Let's be clear, not guilty does not mean innocent. Not guilty means found not guilty, prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 01:18 PM
2

yep... one thing that we should value here is critical thinking. if youre getting your values from an echo chamber, or promulgating crap thinking, youre part of the problem not any solution.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 06:36 PM
7

Everybody should be aware of confirmation bias. If you think it scripted but it doesn't matter, you're taking something to barely meets anecdotal standards, degrading it, then saying, but I believe this would happen just like this…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 04:28 PM
1

Well that doesn't sound completely fair either... I propose some game theory, if only the woman wants to have a baby, and the man doesn't: Make a random court appointed Choice... 3/4 for the women, and it's just like it currently is. But 25% of the time, the man won't be obligated at all. Make it 50-50 if you believe more in the men's right not to be responsible for fathering a child, 90/10 if you believe society wants men and women to be responsible for children from sex financially. That shoul…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 01:46 PM
1

Just adding that, I appreciate your agreement.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 04:18 PM
2

Boys are not equipped to deal with ramifications of sex with a adult predator.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 03:31 AM
3

Also additionally exposure to disease!
/r/MensRights05/03/16 11:07 PM
1

Church!
/r/MensRights05/03/16 11:05 PM
1

Sure, but lawmaking designed with checks and balances, purposely to avoid this trap. Can't say the system is perfect, of course.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:56 PM
1

WAC 162-32-060 Gender-segregated facilities. Facility use. All covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities, such as restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and homeless or emergency shelters, that are consistent with that individual's gender expression or gender identity. In such facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall allow access to and use of a facility consistent with that individual's gender expression or gen…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 11:36 PM
2

All those fucking comments above that are upvoted don't realize that basically, the laws provided are de facto gender-neutral, coed changing rooms. http://mynorthwest.com/992/2913750/Man-caught-undressing-in-front-of-girls-at-Green-Lake-locker-room
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:13 PM
1

Creating a public disturbance Is already a law, and leaves it up to the court and police to use their discretion,which sounds like a bad idea and maybe it is. However, most likely it won't be a big deal. Other then men trying to prove a stupid point, they probably are not going to have a big Issue. We live in a country where people can walk into The mall or a bar with a rifle, so it's not really a stretch to say that if a certain area wants to make their laws for bathrooms where, "you cannot dis…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:06 PM
1

Values of course, but wisely there has always been lawmakers who spoke out against mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:32 AM
1

Well, his life is going to be basically the same if he was raped or not. He still can't get dressed, he still can't communicate, and he still has the mind of a toddler. He might have liked it. What she did was obviously criminal, and she's going to jail for it, but it's not as bad as raping a 12 yo.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 04:12 AM
0

Laws are not a popularity contest. The legal system is not supposed to reflect the values of most people. Most people think Satanism is a crock Of shit, yet laws still protect Satanism, the same way they protect Quakers, Amish or protestants.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 04:02 AM
1

This actually seems fine to me, iTs basically anarchy, depending on people to do the right thing.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 03:48 AM
1

actually if you look at the article http://mynorthwest.com/992/2913750/Man-caught-undressing-in-front-of-girls-at-Green-Lake-locker-room It is basically saying that all bathrooms are coed bathrooms by law, but if you were making people uncomfortable, both sides will be asked to use alternate measures. So they conveniently sidestep, IDs, gender expression, everything. The article strangely asks " why didn't they call the police? "But, according to the article, the law states he did nothing wrong.…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 03:41 AM
2

It's fucked up and horrible, no question. And the one that actually went into the anus is a sexual assault, charged as aggravated rape, which is one of the worst charges.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:19 PM
8

They were charged with rape of the boy Who was penetrated. Appears Nobody who is an investigator was claiming otherwise. Headline is bullshit. There were four boys, three were not penetrated, penetration appears to be accidental because the pool cue was supposed to Shoved at a clothed butt and one boys clothing tore. I could see how that's a accident. Some people say four sexual assaults occurred, that's kind of a different subject.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 04:05 AM
5

The most important thing I think you can really take away is how an echo chamber has dangerous consequences. I have no doubt that this person believed what they were doing was right. Facilitated communication was Proven as crap, and people just went back for more, rebranding it, doing it in safe spaces etc. She used his hand as a Oujia board to say whatever her sadly twisted yet erudite mind wanted. This might actually make a great musical or opera. PS Kind of like you can still find people who …
/r/MensRights01/03/16 03:30 AM
13

Thank God we had a woman judge on the case, and I'm actually not sarcastic. Truly equal opportunity should be a goal.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 03:24 AM
1

I can go to any number of random parks, and find less than 10% even less then 5% men with children. I'm pretty sure nobody said that it was unheard of. Usually you will see, female caretakers and mothers. Less usually, fathers and rarely, paid male caretakers. Apparently we differ on the definition of unusual. It does not mean without precedence. You also admit the paranoia, does not come from radical feminism/ manginas, it precedes it. So by your own admission, you made a generalization that do…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 06:42 PM
1

In your 1st statement You attribute this issue to the "media building a radical feminist culture." The fact that it is unusual that men take their kids to the park, especially during work hours, has existed longer than the movement you're deriding. Is that fair to say? The fear of men as predators and pedophlies also has roots way outside and way before the craziest "feminists" having some carry to their voices. And the statement that I'm directly replying to is an exact variation of the "no Iri…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:18 PM
1

I get now, your commentary is on society and not the article or actions in the article.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:29 PM
2

If the situation was reversed I would make sure she was fired, that's a sexual harassment suit that I would not want. The challenge in the article is specifically for venture capital funding, and it is supported with documentation and studies by real scholars.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:54 AM
1

Thank you.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:51 AM
2

So you agree that it's quite ok he was fired, right? Though she was satisfied with Instacart’s response, she knew women in many industries faced much worse, and started ruminating about how she could change workplace culture more broadly There is not one sentence in that article that says that she faced any sort of hostile work environment at her job. Or that she experienced any discrimination as a female while being an employee. You're treating it as if someone said her work environment was an …
/r/MensRights29/02/16 04:47 AM
1

If you just started a job, and it depends on some degree of understanding social norms, yes you can get fired for that. I was trying to explain it to you because I'm thinking that you're Not understanding what a workplace is for and what is commonly acceptable. Can you get fired for wearing xxx, when everybody else is wearing suits? Answer: of course. You're working for a start up in California, an at will employment state. You won't be fired because they are khaki phobic, or they anti casual, b…
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:18 AM
0

Look I've already called you a moron, shit for brains, intellectually challenged, etc. Don't be surprised that I would call you a shit bag.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 10:33 PM
2

Thank you, I love the way you phrased it, because people here understood what you were saying. I tend to look down on those here who don't seem to exhibit a sense of commonly understood appropriate behavior. I think I do that because I don't see the point in embracing victimhood and inflating situations with your imagination. Would that be harsh if the guy worked there for 2 years? Would situation still apply if the sexes were reversed? Absolutely.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 08:05 PM
3

Suppose you tell your new male boss, who's openly gay, that You ranked the attractiveness of the men and he's the hottest guy at the company. Unless your start up is Grindr, it shows poor judgment.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 07:54 PM
1

https://youtu.be/WlBiLNN1NhQ
/r/MensRights28/02/16 07:49 PM
3

I suppose if youre a father in the park that helps, and if you see one, give them props, maybe ask if they've had similar experiences. Sometimes it helps if you listen to people. It gives them a chance to think about it, and maybe understand it more. Also, getting the story out helps.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:06 PM
1

Lol, whether or not she likes it, it's still not appropriate to do to your boss. Employee 20 means something in a start up, duh. Maybe somebody in engineering can get away with it, but somebody in sales, or customer service should be canned, before they show how stupid they can really get. If you're late for your first day of work does that make an impression?
/r/MensRights28/02/16 06:01 PM
3

She was either his boss or a boss of his boss. Dumbass probably should've gotten fired. Keep in mind he was a new employee. She was employee number 20 and the operations manager. Shows lack of judgment. Keep in mind California is an at will employment state.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 05:31 PM
-9

That's sort of polarizing generalization is How you fall off the mark of logic and reason.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 05:10 PM
0

You're the shitbag who said 30 years in prison, and to repeat myself only moron thinks that sentencing equals time served. Things you want to put in conversation are beyond stupid, sorry. Such as the possibility of no victim. I've already said it's appropriate given what you can know about the case. Multiple victims, length of abuse, the level of power over child, 12 yo victim, teacher is an trusted agent of the state, and the fact that prison sentences are a supposed to be a deterrent. That's t…
/r/MensRights28/02/16 03:40 PM
1

OK, I hope you are feeling much better. Do you have a go to inspirational story? Or music that uplift your mood?
/r/MensRights28/02/16 01:01 PM
0

I don't think you are actually worth a shit stain on yesterday's drawers. Maybe you might not want to address me.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 04:58 PM
1

As I told other people why the fuck would you say 30 years sentence equal 30 years served? Are you a fucking moron? Of course your a moron, or at the very least intellectually dishonest. You said that there is a possibility there is no victim in this case, despite the young age of the child. 25 yo, grooms and rapes a 12 yo. Specifically you think for 30 years sentence is too much, for this case. That's called specificity. You didn't make a General argument, and I'm not making one either. Except …
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:56 PM
2

No I'm asking if they care about anything. Basic human decency. Is a 12-year-old a teenager now? No, so you seem to have failed some basic intelligence test.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 06:44 AM
3

I'm going to have to bow out from discussing, because there are so many of you pedophile supporters here it's truly depressing. She taught seventh graders, she started grooming and rape apparently at 12yo with him and there was another charge that didn't stick with another boy. The 12-year-old has no defenses against a adult practiced predator, how can you not fucking see that, are you just dumb as shit? Pedophiles have a routine, it includes choosing the most vulnerable, and using any psycholog…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 05:52 AM
1

Do some research and see what time served, compared to sentencing is. Don't be a moron and think 30 sentencing years equals 30 years in prison (unless there's a mandatory minimum)
/r/MensRights27/02/16 03:24 AM
5

You might've missed that it was clearly sarcasm.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 03:17 AM
1

I mean, we're in a time of peace, often known as the long peace. There's a black president, it's not gonna be a big deal if there's a woman president. You can get caught up in the minutia of life, but there's plenty of reasons to be positive. The fact is we are so removed from the actual violence of killing for food and survival, And we have time to bash each other on gender and race and class is a net positive. the corporate overlords are killing it in the income inequality thing but, what can …
/r/MensRights27/02/16 03:14 AM
0

Well, what is punishment for? Is it so somebody can learn a lesson? Sometimes. Is it for rehabilitation? Unlikely. To a degree it's meant to have a deterrent effect. If you rape a child over four years, and on conviction get eight years, parole in four, that's an even trade--- four years of fucking a child, four years of jail time. Hardly a deterrent. This isn't some developmental disabled person who gravitates towards pedophilia. This is an adult entrusted with a responsibility, and against hum…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 02:15 AM
5

Well, four years from 16 is 12 dude. And you have no idea what the rapist did to make it happen, and continue to make it happen. 12-year-old is not old enough to consent, A 12-year-old can want to drive, fuck and do Coke, but it's abuse if you let that happen. The adult clearly knows the difference between right and wrong, and crossing that line should have severe consequences. So if you have a 12 yo daughter and I'm like here have some Coke, is that cool with you?
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:22 AM
4

So she actually got off easy, considering if you keep going back and robbing a bank it's multiple crimes. His sexuality could be permanently fucked up, he can have posttraumatic stress disorder. I'll bet his chances for suicide, drug abuse, violent death, jail time all went up significantly compared to non molested peers. To put this in a men's right perspective, I'm positve you're giving her a pass because she's female, and he's a boy. This isn't a 16-year-old and a 12-year-old. And the idea th…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:06 AM
7

Yeah we have laws to protect minors for a reason, 12 years old is not old enough to consent to sex, especially with an adult in a position of power over them. That's nonconsensual that's called rape, because that's what it is.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:41 PM
8

I don't know how you would tell if she's at risk to reoffend. Why was she at risk to offend in the first place? Like, how do you know that somebody is going to be hey I'm gonna rape your child, guess my motivation...
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:24 PM
7

What penalty do you think you should have for convincing/coercing a 12-16 year-old to have sex with you as an adult teacher? the teacher should know that's illegal and wrong, so there's no extenuating circumstances. She's not stealing some bread to live off. if our laws don't protect the most helpless of society, who do they protect?
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:21 PM
6

Yeah 13 years or younger, and she's a teacher. Obviously, this is seriously fucked up if that's your son you would want her to hang.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:20 PM
4

What's the earliest parole date? Sentencing is bullshit, if you just go by the big number.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 11:18 PM
1

It would be great if somebody could find that actual case.
/r/MGTOW26/02/16 10:34 PM
3

So happy to see logical arguments here, it's what we deserve.
/r/MGTOW26/02/16 10:33 PM
2

According to you and OP luke has an easy win, they would have to accept a settlement offer, why would they do want to settle? There's no such thing as irefutable evidence, and if you knew how the legal system worked, in reality, you would never say, "this is an easy win."
/r/MensRights26/02/16 10:23 PM
1

Source for the full transcript anyone?
/r/MensRights26/02/16 09:29 PM
1

There's invisible bias, take a look at the study where people walking to car dealerships. Black people get most screwed by blacks. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayres/carint.htm There's no refuting findings like these and there's more modern examples as well.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 09:28 PM
1

Yeah, I'm thinking now that it will probably turn out to be some survey of other studies or some bullshit, I'm hoping you come through. It's actually a good experiment. Sexism actually exists, Women auditioning for orchestras do worse than men for no reason (other than bias) and that's why now, auditions are conducted blindly.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 07:49 PM
1

Even odds, How much would you put up for him winning? Don't bother answering, because if you can't figure out that more than 90% of civil lawsuits get settled, I wouldn't feel OK with taking your money, lol. Nobody saying he doesn't have a case, but if you think this is a easy win, you don't know shit about the legal system.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 07:37 PM
1

I'm not going to argue the merits of the case, Would you give me 2 to 1 odds on luke winning? What about even odds?
/r/MensRights26/02/16 07:09 PM
1

Yeah I'm looking for that source still too, because it's actually not a hard experiment to set up. peer reviewed science is my go to evidence.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:49 PM
0

That's a very simple view of what happens in court. I know it's how you would like things to work. But they don't actually work that way in reality.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:48 PM
1

I don't disagree, but it's still just a strategic normal law procedure. Probabilities tell you that it will be settled if if looks like he might win. The chances of it actually going all the way to winning is low. No matter how strong the case. The idea that it's an easy win is incongruent with The facts... If she believes that she was raped, even if no rape occurred, then she has no malice. She can go on the stand and he was going to kill her mom if she didn't perjure herself. If he gains in th…
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:45 PM
4

That's totally a way of doubling down on any built-in prejudice in the court system.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 02:17 PM
1

Yep. Or simple half-asleep, can be an explanation as well. Lots of people don't remember things even when they're fully awake.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 02:08 PM
2

I saw her perform at a club in the village. Crappy and self-indulgent.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 01:42 PM
1

Standard operating procedure
/r/MensRights26/02/16 01:04 PM
4

I hope none of you are potential lawyers, because this is a simple counter suit, NBD and also low probability to win. IANAL, but the standard for actual intent is difficult for Anyone to prove. Somebody sues you, you put in a countersuit, SOP.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 01:00 PM
3

Except she changed it. No dollar sign. Not only does she stand to make millions of dollars off renegotiation, she will have or is getting rebranded, with millions of dollars of free publicity.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 12:56 PM
1

Solid advice.
/r/MGTOW26/02/16 12:32 AM
3

Source please.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 12:20 AM
1

It would be interesting to track a similar story, with the male committing the similar atrocities. Would a male abuser automatically be called a rapist in the headline? Would it be shared more? Greater level of vilification? Irrelevant aside: I fucking hate cops, and especially ones in Staten Island but I'm sorry that they had to go through this because this is some horrifying, nightmarish shit to witness.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 12:17 AM
1

Some people don't deserve your breath. I'm appalled that there are those who can't see the lasting effects, which can include jail, suicide or murder.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 08:34 PM
1

I know we agree, because my first sentence says I believe in due process. While it's wrong to brand all men as potential rapists or Lower the standard of evidence to prove rape, the person who says rape is "difficult and dangerous", is fucking wrong. I think you look like an idiot to make a statement like that. Not every accusation is a walk in the park either. A 15-year-old boy or girl naming their moms beloved boyfriend,girlfriend could find themselves traumatized again by the court system and…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 02:51 PM
1

You strengthen their argument when you make your argument weak. Nobody reasonable would use the word inconvenient. I tried to make it easier for you to understand because I put in that funeral metaphor.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 02:32 PM
1

Wtf? This is insane, you don't get PTSD from going into the system and Jailed? What about 15 years later after the complainant recants their story, as has happened so many times in the news recently. That whole court, conviction, jail thing, is way worse than being raped once. And I was raped (at 15), and I was falsely accuse of DV, Believe me I personally am on the side where a false accusation can be so much worse, you have no idea. And I only went to jail, charges were dropped, there was a re…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 02:02 PM
1

Inconvenient seems to be a pretty fucked up word. If were raped in my butt hole, it wouldn't be an "inconvenience" to collect evidence from that same area. I agree physical evidence is the gold standard, and that's what you need, but we should have empathy for somebody who went possibly through mental and physical tragedy. Suppose you must make arrangements for a friends funeral, it's a hard task and it needs to be done, but it's not an "inconvenience." You don't want to do it, and it's emotiona…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:32 AM
1

We don't disagree, not at all. I don't want to do a pendulum swing. And I don't think you do either. I want due process, but I do want to acknowledge that there have been and are genuine problems in law-enforcement and victim blaming, and rape. In some ways we seem to be growing, most people are acknowledging men can be abused, and men can be raped. That might at least partly be from better strains of feminism, which at some point was about equality. 90% of the dialogue that I see about this kes…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 02:36 AM
1

I'm totally on the side that says due process, presumption of innocence. The world has gone mad the other way. But historically, date rape has been an issue that until recently was under addressed. Roofie's are not some figment of a feminist mad imagination, there are guys out there who would rape women with these tools. Lowering the numbers of victims is not a bad idea. Just like women shouldn't Side with false accusers, I'm not going to side with people who think that rape always looks violent…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 01:39 AM
1

The 1st post I responded to didn't say that it is more dangerous, it said it's difficult and dangerous. Fuck a human while passed out. doesn't sound dangerous or difficult. Date rape may require you to stop having sex, if it's going on and the other person decides they want to stop. Continuing Sex after someone says repeatedly no stop is rape, but it's not dangerous or difficult is it? I also outlined where rape is almost institutionally acceptable, with almost 0 consequences, and remarkably tha…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 01:28 AM
0

I will never ever click on a daily mail link purposely. Graham harper hero, Men holding prorape rallies, fuck that shit.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 12:45 AM
0

Well I guess that remains to be seen. I would think that the clear indication is Kesha has won The hearts and minds of Americas females and their pop icons. Keshas barrier is a lot lower than ghomeshi, she doesn't need a preponderance of evidence, this doesn't even need to go to court criminally. She just needs to improve her negotiations, which she has accomplished.. Also, ghomeshi is fired and has no career. Plus lost tons of $, let's see how well he bounces back.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:41 PM
1

I believe they have already released her from parts of her contract, where DR. Luke Controls the recording and produces the songs. Sony provided amendments to her contract, in writing to the court. So already you are partly wrong, Kesha did gain from this and Sony released partially. I'm not asking questions Attack you, but if you had information saying oh these artists actually believes differently I'd like to hear it. And while she may not have a winning case for the rest of the contract, she …
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:32 PM
1

OK, what artists are wiser? Do you have anything factual to support your statement? Because there are at least 20 major women artists that are behind Kesha. Maybe you've heard of Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, a. Grande, Demi Lovato, Lourde, lily Allen... I understand you have an opinion, but you don't seem to be able to back it up with things that are out there in reality. And this is what I have a issue with. When you don't understand when something is a preliminary injunction, and you make statement…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:59 PM
0

Sony might have to cave. With all the major artists who may not work with DR Luke again, it's up in the air. Name one person who is saying, "we don't have facts." That's the person who will be branded a "rape sympathizer/apologist", as I understand it the only reason Taylor Swift gave money, was because she didn't immediately support Kesha via Twitter. And had to cough up dollars to show that she did support, and was a feminist. She got ahead of what could have been a huge backlash, and that's t…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:13 PM
0

It's never a bad idea for you to actually understand some of the concepts of what's going on, and speak intelligently. Rushing to judgment is an error, when it happens on either side. It's wrong that public opinion doesn't understand how much she has to gain from framing this as a sexual violence case rather than a unfair contract case. But that has to do with society NOT our legal system.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:58 PM
1

It's easy to look like an idiot if you say blah blah blah rape culture, Believe every potential victim/accuser, it's also easy to look like an idiot if you say rape is super difficult, and it only looks like Violent coercive duct tape and a knife action. I will say being branded falsely as a rapist, can affect somebody more than being physically raped. They are both Horrible events, but one of which you will lose all of your friends and support.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:42 PM
0

I don't know if you're following this, she only lost the preliminary injunction that she was not likely to win.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:36 PM
-2

Yeah, it's super difficult to roll over and rape your prison roommate, if you're bigger. <s> And it's not dangerous to find incapacitated females to rape if your looking hard enough or willing to buy enough or spike drinks. (Barring getting caught)
/r/MensRights24/02/16 05:34 PM
4

It's only because he's a minor. A regular dude would be branded.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 04:07 PM
1

Not all rape is difficult and dangerous, date rape actually does occur. There are men who do rape women who are in capable of consent, blackout drunk or incoherent. Statutory rape where a minor under 16 and the adult is a decade older as seen by many female teachers also easy as hell. We basically have institutional rape in our prisons. Where men rape other men with zero consequences, or female prison guards rape male and female inmates. MRIs look completely tone deaf when they think that all ra…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 04:04 PM
1

It's always better to renegotiate your contract, if you possibly can. This is an incredible win for her if she pulls it off. Without it, she has to do all the rebranding from "party all the time girl", with her own publicity money and people might get tired of her story. If she pulls this off, she goes instantly from party all the time, to independent woman survivor. Plus, millions of extra $ that goes directly in her pocket. The contract you get as a proven hit artist is a lot different that th…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:57 PM
1

" It won't be promoted as well, so she won't make any money, and her career will be dead." That's the part that doesn't sound like a rape victim to me. We don't know the facts, but I'm absolutely willing to discount for her testimony based on this. She could make a record (out of six) with zero involvement from Dr. Luke, except handing him over his share of $. And see if she makes money. If she feels it under promoted, then she can sue… as a career move, this is an amazing way for her to get out…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:43 PM
4

I suppose if he took pictures the first time they had sex, that could be a scenario where he forced her continually to have more sex. Given today's digital age that's the most likely scenario, but we don't have very many facts.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 03:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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