TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JoelMahon Archive

View 3 posts and 464 comments by JoelMahon on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
8

She's no stunner but I'd hardly consider her ugly lol, hard to tell with all that make up though
/r/PussyPassDenied25/03/21 03:22 PM
3

ugh, feels gross upvoting anything about devos that isn't her head being put onto a pike
/r/MensRights08/05/20 05:34 AM
4

Truth is we won’t know. And as we know from all the false accusation posts on this sub, when we don't know we assume innocent, not guilty.
/r/MensRights04/05/20 05:51 PM
4

I don't understand, who says she was lying about her past? She was literally being honest in this post? And the comments in this thread are 30% of the reason reddit and most the world views us as incels/incel lite.
/r/MensRights04/05/20 05:26 PM
1

I think most men get aroused looking at Margot Robbie's face, should she have to cover up or face the wrath of prudes like you?
/r/MensRights30/04/20 06:24 AM
1

So you support men and women to wear burkas, wow. Well at least now I know not to waste any more time on you, you're a lost cause of prudishness lol
/r/MensRights29/04/20 06:06 PM
1

And who's attracted to burkas? Are you being intentionally obtuse? If being attracted to breasts makes banning women showing them ok then by your logic being attracted to faces makes banning women showing them ok, hence why I mentioned burkas. Clearly isn't sexual? Man you have such a narrow minded view, every considered that of 7.8 billion humans that some are different to you?
/r/MensRights29/04/20 05:50 PM
0

What a useless comment, I asked why it was sexual. Not one qualifier that they could be not not sexual. What makes them sexual? Clear enough? Did the big wall of text last time overload you?
/r/MensRights29/04/20 03:28 PM
-1

What makes them sexual? That people are attracted to them? That they're used in feeding a baby? If it's that people are sexually attracted to them, you could say the same about faces and burkas. They're only so risqué because they're banned, in european countries where they're on tv and at public beaches people are much less bothered by them. It's a negative feedback loop to have them restricted so much as they are. If it's that they're used to feed a baby, then why are arms allowed to be expose…
/r/MensRights29/04/20 02:03 PM
2

Please OP, this isn't a contest, don't validate all the people saying MRAs only care about equality for men. And you're undermining all the criticisms of feminists that only care about women's rights by doing the same but in reverse.
/r/MensRights29/04/20 02:00 PM
1

You can't disprove a negative claim. Neither of the claims were negative, so what's your point? X raped Y is a positive claim, as is Y is lying. To use your flying spaghetti monster example: X claims they are a flying spaghetti monster, Y claims they are lying. Neither can prove their positive claim so nothing should fucking happen as a consequence, why is that hard to understand? Where am I presenting these rape claims as facts?
/r/MensRights12/04/20 08:13 PM
1

where did I give credence, where did I say you didn't need to prove the accused is guilty? straw man all you want, but that won't change my ACTUAL position, which I made clear, that positive claims require proof. Saying an accusation is false is a positive claim, just like the accusation itself is a positive claim. An accusation without proof is not automatically false for that reason.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 08:08 PM
1

Proving claim 2 does indeed disprove claim 1, but the same goes for the other way around. Neither relies on the other, they are related, but not in a consequential fashion. And there's still a state where neither is proven! WHICH YOU KEEP IGNORING.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 07:44 PM
1

you said burden of proof lies on claimee 1, that only applies to claim 1, but what we're discussing here is the burden of proof for claim 2, op gave no proof but made claim 2 anyway, ergo, burden of proof lies on them
/r/MensRights12/04/20 07:27 PM
1

don't know anything about rape shield laws myself, and so like a reasonable human being I won't comment either way
/r/MensRights12/04/20 07:22 PM
3

Doesn't need to be proven? To prove it it does obviously, never said anything about the law in that sentence, depending on the country anything could go for any crime so please don't be so ego centric to assume I'm going by the USA (for example), which in itself has many different states with their own laws, etc. You seem to think that a the burden of proof for a false rape accusation should be high, unlike the rape accusation itself for which there is no burden of proof at all. Why is this? Mas…
/r/MensRights12/04/20 06:55 PM
0

Are you talking about proven false allegations? Because it doesn't sound like it, and that's what being discussed. This topic in particular? Because there were any others worth jumping on? Except their general language like "crazy" not winning any hearts over.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 06:24 PM
4

Did I ever say that any of that was ok? Did anything I said make it sound like I thought the current system was fair on the accused?
/r/MensRights12/04/20 06:13 PM
-1

They said there was a massive amount of them, whilst I could agree that there are a massive amount of low/no evidence accusations, there isn't a massive amount of false accusations (unless you include baseless ones, which they obviously did)
/r/MensRights12/04/20 06:08 PM
-5

I don't see a way two completely incompatible world views can reach a compromise via this medium at least. If you don't believe in free speech fine, I'll tell you to fuck off, this isn't a formal debate, I don't have the hours to tell you why in detail that free speech is important, what response would you have supplied in my shoes?
/r/MensRights12/04/20 06:06 PM
4

OP called them false accusations? Are you denying that?
/r/MensRights12/04/20 05:48 PM
1

So we're going to ignore the scenario where I don't actually have milk in my fridge I mean, now you look like a moron because one sentence later I literally cover that possibility, apparently your attention span ran out? And besides, there are numerous plant milks. As I said before, I guess we're done, you're just layering fallacy upon fallacy at this point, even if your position was correct you couldn't show it without such inadequate attempts.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 05:47 PM
-19

Approach? This is a universal rule of scepticism, it's how anyone should think. But it says nothing of how you should act, it doesn't tie heavily into game theory or laws, but when communicating it's best to state your position coherently, don't present things that aren't facts as facts, etc. I think you're making huge assumptions about my position that are false. Or, ya know, do the right thing and keep all accusations private and make it a crime to leak it. Yeah, fuck off
/r/MensRights12/04/20 05:45 PM
0

??? You can take neither as fact, that is an option FYI
/r/MensRights12/04/20 05:40 PM
0

because baseless accusations are false acussations ok, we're done, I can't take anyone this stupid seriously, this is obviously false. I can claim you have milk in your fridge, it is a baseless claim, is it false? Hope that made you realise how stupid that sentence was, and just on the off chance that you have zero kinds of milk in your fridge, try to imagine the very possible scenario that you did
/r/MensRights12/04/20 05:02 PM
1

In this case it does matter, it's ironic, you think accusing someone of rape without evidence is a horrible, but you're totally fine with OP accusing people of a crime without evience. What about the kevin spacey accusers? All the boys that accused those priests? All these real examples you ignored that aren't just on the internet? Nobody said you can't talk about it. Talk about it all you want. Just don't point fingers at someone if you don't actually have any proof of the situation. That's obv…
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:35 PM
7

an apple thrown at your head and a pear thrown at your head would cause the same level of threat, doesn't mean I should use the incorrect term when describing the event. And I disagree, and I bet you do too, have you called out any men on this sub when they make an unproven allegation? No, because often there is no proof, and as a victim of molestation myself I can understand why they shouldn't be arrested and imprisoned, but the notion that I can't even talk about it is disgusting.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:20 PM
-2

we're not discussing being unsure of your actions, we're talking about being unsure of what occurred, if anything, between the accusers and the accused that op listed. I thought that much was obvious.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:16 PM
77

I'm with the other person, you shouldn't call all unproved allegations false allegations, rape is literally the hardest crime to prove because consent is mental. Innocent until proven guilty applies to both sides, the default position should not be that the accuser is lying, or that the accused is guilty, but rather that we don't know. The accused shouldn't have to lift a finger until notable evidence comes to light of their guilt, but even if there is zero evidence at all, that doesn't make the…
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:14 PM
9

maybe because op called unproven cases false allegations, which aren't the same thing.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:09 PM
3

except the op does exactly that, claims they are lying without proof
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:08 PM
2

you don't need to disprove the claim, but you can't claim they don't cause autism until you prove they don't (which has been done so you don't need to do that either, but you get the idea). There are THREE positions you can take on binary question, e.g. do vaccines cause autism, yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW, until there's proof of yes or no (which as I say, there's plenty of proof they don't, but think more generally, outside this example) you should take the last position, in which case it's not a …
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:08 PM
2

who said they should be? no one in this thread at least
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:04 PM
1

It's not different, but just because god isn't proved to exist doesn't prove he doesn't exist either. A lack of proof of one thing isn't proof of the opposite, if I can't prove I've met Mike Tyson doesn't mean you can claim without a doubt that I haven't met him. Scepticism is waiting until having proof until you are sure of anything, so it's not a false allegation, it's a baseless accusation, or unproven accusation, etc. unless you have actual proof it was impossible they were raped, e.g. evide…
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:03 PM
-9

Then you're a moron, claiming something to be false is still a claim, you shouldn't make claims without proof. There's this position you've never heard of before called being unsure, try it some time.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 04:00 PM
11

Everything unproven by the original standards should automatically be considered false That's not what innocent until proven guilty means, false accusation is a separate crime, which needs proving, insufficient proof of rape is not the same as sufficient proof that they lied about being raped. Both sides are innocent until proven guilty.
/r/MensRights12/04/20 03:59 PM
0

A) what this person said https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fbph53/cold_hard_facts/fj5vbfi/ B) Male privilege doesn't have to mean that only males have privilege. I think it's good introspection to always see what your own demographic has better than others. There's female privilege and male privilege, some human made, some not. We should work to eliminate all demographical privileges.
/r/MensRights01/03/20 12:28 PM
4

abandoned your role and place? if that thinks what I think it means then this person can suck a dick, misogyny isn't the correct response to misandry.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 05:28 PM
4

Others in the thread have already said what I'd want to say about controversial isn't the same as bad, and how femaledatingstratergy is there. But I find it funny how doxing is listed in the mensrights entry, which I agree is terrible, don't dox people, but elsewhere there's a miniphilosophical debate about whether doxing is justified when the context suits them.
/r/MensRights18/02/20 06:26 AM
19

Pretty sure that's not how you use full circle, but I feel you
/r/MensRights09/02/20 05:46 AM
5

"I like my husband, make your own bloody breakfast, make your own bloody coffee" Well you also have a job (if you can call it that). Pretending that a stay at home parent has to do nearly as much work (even including all that) as a full time professional (with a commute probably) is silly. But worse than that she's acting like it's reasonable for one parent to do all that work for the other when they both have full time jobs! What a ridiculous comparison!
/r/MensRights09/02/20 05:44 AM
1

what definition of the suffix ism are you using? Not in any dictionary I've seen. Mind sharing? Your own personal definitions aren't very sensible to use in a discussion online.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 03:59 PM
10

Soooo you're just changing your argument? You said feminism MEANT sexism because of it's name. But now you're arguing that doesn't matter for MRA? Either the naming make it sexist or it doesn't, chose.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 01:41 PM
9

So why is the sub called Men's rights, is it sexist? Imo everyone should be both a feminist and an MRA, both sexes face issues
/r/MensRights05/02/20 12:50 PM
1

Now some do (like a tiny percent) but that only began a few years ago. Why wouldn't MRAs suffer the same problematic shift?
/r/MensRights27/01/20 07:36 PM
1

*Doubt* What will happen is those seeking equality will drop out, and those seeking superiority will stay. Familiar much?
/r/MensRights27/01/20 05:20 PM
0

So you didn't read my comment at all, I already addressed everything you just said. Do you want MRAs to repeat history 50 years down the line?
/r/MensRights27/01/20 09:54 AM
-2

Plenty are yes, would you say MRAs are sexist because some MRAs are sexist? I mean there are very few openly in power, and they are carefully walking on eggshells for obvious reasons. But hypothetically lets say in 20 years the stigma on being MRA is gone, do you think we won't suffer the same problems if we aren't introspective from the start? We don't want to repeat history.
/r/MensRights27/01/20 05:45 AM
7

ok, and your point is? It was bad then too.
/r/MensRights26/01/20 04:49 PM
-17

Now, you'd expect to see more sexism and wouldn't be disappointed. More sexism? By this point in the comment you've shown no sexism. Being feminist doesn't make you sexist, much like being an MRA doesn't make you sexist. I'm not defending her btw, I criticise you because weak arguments make us look bad. Just trying to get across unless you just want to circlejerk and self pity rather than actually convince anyone, you need to not open up with something that will automatically make almost all rea…
/r/MensRights26/01/20 04:47 PM
1

ding dong your opinion is wrong
/r/MensRights17/01/20 09:16 PM
1

You all sound terrible tbh, would you say the same about a guy whose girlfriend/wife is a psycho?
/r/MensRights10/01/20 09:23 PM
18

I agree, I put it in quotes because for me the rational behind my views doesn't end there, it is extremely important to incorporate the argument that a foetus is at a different level of ethical value at different stages. From low to high obviously. Most prochoice people wouldn't let someone terminate a foetus at 8.5 months if the mother wasn't at more than normal risk, so despite what they say it is not all about bodily autonomy of the mother to them.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 07:38 AM
70

A broken clock is right twice a day I guess I'm also "prochoice" so I guess only half right twice a day.
/r/MensRights10/01/20 06:34 AM
21

living up to your user name I see
/r/MensRights10/01/20 06:32 AM
26

It's always legal if you tell them, some states are two party consent only for even normal stuff, even in your own home sometimes, idk if anywhere is one party consent in your own home for nudity
/r/MensRights09/01/20 12:07 PM
0

yes, legally, but morally a rapist can drunk no matter the sex
/r/MensRights08/01/20 12:11 PM
1

ok? I never said anything contrary to that, in fact I implied what you said, what's your point? Why are you agreeing with me but in a disagreeing tone?
/r/MensRights01/01/20 10:19 AM
1

I said all that was fine in my comment, what's your point? Especially since your tone is of disagreement despite your content being of agreement.
/r/MensRights31/12/19 09:34 AM
7

Plenty in this thread making her point for her. If they want sex and you don't that's fine, but to turn them down or not approach them for it when you otherwise would because "you respect them" absolutely says you don't respect girls who would have sex on the First date. It's not a damned if you do/don't situation, just don't project onto them reasons why they shouldn't have sex, have your own reason why yourself doesn't want sex, one is telling them what to do, the other is exercising your bodi…
/r/MensRights30/12/19 11:55 PM
2

I am mostly with you, pretty sure you're wrong about the men women balance in people's personal lives, it's important for both to exist in politics for their unique perspective on issues that are unique to them as you already put, but in people's personal lives that doesn't apply. Some people are perfectly comfortable being alone, or being in a homosexual relationship.
/r/MensRights23/12/19 06:38 AM
1

but if sexism like that is permitted and not repremanded then its a big no except you still see similar in the conservative party, if you voted for them then you were also supporting things of an equally or more disgusting level. There are almost no parties that don't sadly, FTP sucks, but you gotta play the game, did you vote for no one? I'd much rather have a few shitty MPs about then a sexist, racist, homophobic leader like boris, oh, who also has by far the worst politics
/r/MensRights13/12/19 09:39 AM
3

Is she the MP of your constituency? Otherwise I don't see why this would make you switch, she doesn't represent all of labour. And even if she did, which she doesn't, it'd still be less disgusting than half the shit Boris has said.
/r/MensRights12/12/19 06:39 PM
6

Shouldn't bundle everyone? Sure, but no one was bundling everyone into the same basket. We were bundling everyone who forces unconsenting parties into circumcision for no gain into the same basket.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 03:02 PM
0

What's wrong with that then? A world view doesn't need protecting.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 09:01 PM
3

Anti christian, or anti christianity? Big difference.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 08:17 PM
2

Eh, mostly agree, but still think for first time with sex with a particular person that a verbal or written confirmation. Not just not a no.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 09:10 AM
1

Then he's allowed to say that, he's allowed to say "I don't know, I just assume the scientific consensus is correct", but he doesn't, and he acts like an expert anyway.
/r/MensRights25/10/19 04:54 AM
1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY Never said he denied climate change btw, so don't be slipping in strawmen on me please. His arguments are shit, he completely glosses over nuclear, ignores improving battery technology, and is in general irrational about it.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 02:51 PM
1

He's a climate change "sceptic" so he's either a conman, a moron, or hopelessly brainwashed. I still feel bad for his situation. Does that make sense?
/r/MensRights24/10/19 05:00 AM
0

You typed that less than 24 hours ago. Have you hit your head recently or something? This isn’t the first time that you have completely forgotten parts of this conversation. What indicated that I'd forgotten saying that? There's a difference between referring to a specific reddit post and referring to the general occurrence of something, I don't know how I can make it any clearer that I am referring to the latter, are you unable to understand the concept? As for if I believed a rape accusation o…
/r/MensRights11/10/19 10:32 AM
1

but you never linked that to this post Because I wasn't talking A reddit post, I never said I was. And if you think that the stakes on this post aren’t practically nonexistent then you clearly have no sense of human behavior. This is a post that will be swept away by the ever flowing deluge of new content in less than a couple of days. Nothing will change because of it. Nobody will face the threat of jail time or criminal prosecution because of it. In two weeks nobody will even remember that thi…
/r/MensRights11/10/19 09:39 AM
2

the stakes are so low as to be basically nonexistent in this situation And I already explained how they are not low, at least not any lower than all the rape threads you wouldn't instantly believe
/r/MensRights11/10/19 09:21 AM
1

Yet for this post you're on board without that much thought into it, ok, seems non hypocritical to me /s
/r/MensRights11/10/19 08:59 AM
-2

You're not comparing the equivalent though, sometimes the accusation of rape is in the form of a reddit post, you still don't believe it on their word alone do you? Even though your belief or not makes no difference to anyone involved, even if you keep it to yourself entirely even, you're not thinking it, belief is an involuntary emotion. Besides, people in this thread are talking about taking real world action in reaction to this reddit post.
/r/MensRights10/10/19 10:47 PM
-2

Do you believe everyone woman who accuses a man of rape? No, obviously. Don't be a hypocrite, be consistent, if you want to be an overly trusting fool, at least don't be a hypocrite about it.
/r/MensRights10/10/19 10:34 PM
-11

No, it's not, it only is if OP isn't lying. Anyone can make a print out and take a picture of it.
/r/MensRights10/10/19 06:11 PM
1

Dude, I've asked you many questions, I'm asking you questions to avoid making as many assumptions as possible, but if you refuse to answer my questions how the fuck can I discuss this without making assumptions?
/r/MensRights03/10/19 07:38 PM
1

sorry, do you have a different definition of thot than normal? If they're in the adultery sub, and not there for a consensual cheating kink, like those in the screenshot clearly aren't, then they're thots. A thot means according to google "a woman who has many casual sexual encounters or relationships." so OP definitely think they'll be thots because they're promiscuous by his own condition. Now, most people don't use that definition, I didn't know that was the definition, and neither did you, I…
/r/MensRights03/10/19 04:30 PM
1

So, please tell me what YOU think he meant by "They end up here"? Because I think you're either stupid or dishonest if you don't believe OP was referring to being like those in the image, and those in the image are cheating thots, or at least wannabe cheating thots.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 04:06 PM
1

Which part? The fact that the screenshot is from a sub called "adultery" or the fact that adultery makes you a cheating thot?
/r/MensRights03/10/19 03:16 PM
1

"they end up here", referring to the image, from a sub called "adultery", so cheating thots. Care to explain the flaw in that line of logic?
/r/MensRights03/10/19 02:47 PM
1

They literally said that all women with promiscuous pasts end up as cheating thots. There are PLENTY of posts on relationships that I don't agree with that aren't text book incel, this one just is because they've put female celibacy on an pedestal, also because fucking duh.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 01:33 PM
3

Picking a side on what? It's an adultery subreddit, they're talking about cheating. I don't have to agree with OPs incel title to know cheating is wrong, and that's picking a side.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 11:22 AM
3

So these people are clearly shit heads, but op your title is like text book incel.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 11:19 AM
78

fitting user name, cheers, my bad
/r/MensRights23/09/19 09:00 PM
140

She's a judge, so she obviously understands she willingly sentenced someone despite a conflict of interests, hopefully she'll disbar herself within the week /s edit: another cunty judge did the sentencing, my bad, somehow that kind of makes it worse
/r/MensRights23/09/19 08:46 PM
325

It's an insane conflict of interest she was allowed to get involved at all, let alone sentence him wtf edit: my bad, different judge as I've been told
/r/MensRights23/09/19 08:45 PM
24

Wtf, it will stay on her record for 12 months? Why would any misconduct not stay on your record permanently? It's not like having a stain will ruin your career so don't give me that excuse (despite deserving their career being ruined).
/r/MensRights15/09/19 10:19 AM
4

well, they give an example for wheelchair users, so you could call that evidence, but only for that privilege
/r/MensRights09/09/19 04:30 PM
1

No one here said men and women aren't different, not sure how that means zero girls like the stuff they do in boy scouts more than the stuff they do in girl scouts
/r/MensRights18/08/19 08:04 AM
1

Wtf are you talking about? Boy scouts was founded before these people were born, how exactly did they "make their bed"
/r/MensRights17/08/19 09:03 PM
2

There are differences on average, almost none are hard and fast rules. If you're so fixated on having different groups based on their differences, why not actually test for those differences rather than assuming things based on gender? Forced desegregation? No one is forcing girls to join boys scouts, except the odd asshole parent, it's just regular desegregation. Your same tired old argument was used to deny girls access to law school in the past, it was wrong then, it is wrong now, if someone …
/r/MensRights17/08/19 06:49 PM
1

Do you think men and women are different in their preferences? On average, yes, so what? Why does that mean they should be in different groups? This idea that the genders are similar and it's 'society' forcing gender disparities is retarded. It's also unscientific Nobody brought that up except you bud, but keep trying
/r/MensRights17/08/19 06:13 PM
1

What else do the boy scouts have to change, that the girl scouts do not? A) not sure what you mean, afaik, both groups accept members of any gender, at least in the USA, yet grammatically you're talking like this is all hypothetical https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=do+boy+scouts+let+girls+join B) Unless you're referring to the fact that girl scouts currently do not accept boys, then I agree, that needs fixing ASAP, it's unfair that it works one way and not the other
/r/MensRights17/08/19 05:28 PM
2

So, she'll fail the test then won't she? If you're so sure she'll suck and fail why are you so hell bent on preventing her from trying?
/r/MensRights17/08/19 04:57 PM
1

I don't know what form of mental gymnastics made you bring race into the conversation. Sorry, I made this absurd (/s) assumption that when you said dynamics that you meant social dynamics. What you're suggesting is even more ridiculous, firstly, boy scouts begin at 11 years old, an age where it isn't uncommon for girls to be stronger than boys. Secondly, this ain't the army, they aren't hiking until their blisters have blisters, all whilst carrying all their military gear. Thirdly, boy scouts do…
/r/MensRights17/08/19 04:53 PM
1

Ok? So fewer women will get in, what's the problem? If they can hit the notes they need then they can, if they can't they can't.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 04:36 PM
-1

why would their dynamics have to adjust? At least more so than if two boys joined (which I assume you'd have no problem with). What about if two black boys joined a boy scouts group that was up until then all white? God forbid, those white boys have to interact with someone with minor difference from them!
/r/MensRights17/08/19 04:22 PM
-1

uh, what? Boy scouts are going to school as well, most of which not boys only, so they should know what a girl is by this stage. If they need to "completely readjust" then their parents have inflicted some pretty fucked up mental scarring on them.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 04:06 PM
1

Why would all the parents get involved if the rest are satisfied with girl scouts, as are their children?
/r/MensRights17/08/19 03:48 PM
-3

Except if it just one or two girls in a town you end up with a shitty two person group
/r/MensRights17/08/19 02:55 PM
8

As I said, subjectively better, not every girl wants to play with knives or whatever they do in boyscouts, not every boy wants to sell cookies, making both groups the same but separate is even more pointless. Why not just have two scouts groups, with different themes, and everyone can go to the group they prefer? Call them outdoors scouts and indoor scouts or something.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 02:21 PM
-10

So have a test? I'm sure they do already. If it is prepubescent boys, which it is,then there's a half decent chance she could hit the right notes etc.
/r/MensRights17/08/19 02:18 PM
23

Because boy scouts do (subjectively) more interesting things than girl scouts?
/r/MensRights17/08/19 02:16 PM
7

Jesus, there's more than 1/6th of them as there are of MensRights, and the NORMAL for them seems to be far worse than the worst I've seen here
/r/MensRights10/08/19 09:45 PM
1

no one should be proud of their race anyway, pride without earning something is silly
/r/MensRights09/07/19 09:24 PM
53

no actually, for example, they cannot show a man failing to change a nappie. While I disagree in principle with what they're doing, they're being fairly equal with the application
/r/MensRights22/06/19 12:06 PM
67

Wtf, I really REALLY want to be believe this is fake. If they mutilated him a year or so before they killed him why didn't his school ever notice? I guess some kids can manage to keep that secret but still...
/r/MensRights15/06/19 01:20 PM
-8

well you can't conclusively say that he doesn't act differently with the opposite sex from what you've said so can't really conclude anything either way
/r/MensRights10/06/19 08:12 PM
-3

Ok, I never said they should let them get away with it, I said it wasn't violence
/r/MensRights26/05/19 01:02 PM
-1

Uh ok, do you think that condoning the milkshakes as violent will somehow reduce the likelihood of that?
/r/MensRights26/05/19 12:57 PM
-2

A) I never said that it wasn't bad, I said it wasn't violence, there's more than one word with negative connotations FYI B) I said it'd still be funny if the soon to be ex PM was milkshaked, so not sure what sex has to do with anything here
/r/MensRights26/05/19 12:19 PM
-11

I disagree, so does at least one dictionary: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. I'd argue that if someone wanted to hurt, damage, or kill these people they'd use a rock. Their goal is to humiliate them
/r/MensRights26/05/19 11:45 AM
-4

I'd find Theresa may getting hit by a milkshake hilarious as well, it's a dick move, and it shouldn't happen, and doesn't help do anything but make someone a mini martyr, but I wouldn't call it violence
/r/MensRights26/05/19 11:23 AM
66

which is technically possible
/r/MensRights25/05/19 07:41 PM
24

this is so woosh that I hope to god op is meta wooshing and not actually that stupid
/r/MensRights23/05/19 12:19 PM
-3

You know people are allowed preferences right? The problem only arises when they won't let other people have preferences. I know 99% of the people here wouldn't be inclined to date someone with half their face scarred beyond recognition, and that's fine. Much like people can't control these attributes, we can't control our preferences. As some people in the comments have correctly pointed out, is that if this was about preferences in women then it would be labelled as misogynistic. This video is…
/r/MensRights12/05/19 11:24 PM
6

Point 2 on your list sure makes it seem like you are blinded by hatred
/r/MensRights12/05/19 11:24 PM
1

your personal adolescence will not match your father's, at best they will be able to do a better job, but it entirely depends on the person. I'd much rather have an empathic mother help me through puberty than a distant father. Note, I'm not saying these are expected parental personalities, they were merely examples. Since whenever anyone argues what you're arguing they always ignore the natural variations between people. People lie on bell curves, even though the average male may be better than…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 06:07 AM
1

Ah, your solution to me "misunderstanding" what you're saying is to be even more vague! Genius
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:38 AM
1

Wow. Must be sad to live in a country that doesn't provide the proper education of these things.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 05:37 AM
-4

They weren't referring to being male, being male is fine, but doesn't need to be taught so obviously they didn't mean that. They meant man, as in manly, being manly is fine, but the notion that a male needs to be manly is an antiquated idea. If you disagree, name one thing that a father can teach a son that a mother can't, that is actually required for their mental wellbeing.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:09 AM
-12

It’s not homophonic to understand that the entirety of human biological history has been straight couples almost always raising a child together while occupying “traditional gender roles” And by your logic it would have been fine to oppose mixed race relations because "history", news flash, these things are uncommon in history because they'd kill people for engaging in them, not because they're bad.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 03:46 AM
-17

I don't have any issues with homosexual couples raising children, but somebody still needs to show the kid what it means to be a man. oh, so you're not a homophobe, just a sexist.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 03:45 AM
-22

Both are wrong. Please don't spread this homophobic BS. The reason the stats of people without fathers are so dire in metrics like criminality is based on the poverty level. This sub has supported single fathers before, so don't be hypocritical like those you oppose.
/r/MensRights07/05/19 03:22 AM
5

Sadly it has gotten less fringe on this sub over time, perhaps because incels and similar got removed. I think to avoid being like those we swear to overcome (false rape accusation nay sayers), we need to as introspective as possible.
/r/MensRights28/04/19 02:23 PM
3

I said legally a pedophile for that reason, because I don't know what the exact term is in the law but I wanted to make it clear they weren't literally a pedophile.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 10:55 AM
3

I mean now we're getting technical, if we take "most places" absolutely literally, yes, more than half of legal zones probably have an age of consent <= 16. But in reality I obviously meant "odds are", in which population of each place matters, and given the fact that he's using a computer and typing in English to make the post alters the probability a lot too. I couldn't give an exact answer, but odds are you're right, I shouldn't have said most.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 10:44 AM
4

wtf, you mention 17 like it's no big deal, but in most places, assuming they were 18+, that makes them legally a pedophile. Now personally I think a 17 and 18 year old should be able to screw as much as they want, but when it's non consensual even small age gaps are more significant, and she was more senior in your workplace I imagine? Both of these make it even more messed up.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 07:18 AM
3

Well I never complained about op being impartial about the right story, but I accept that doctors make mistakes, what should they do? Remove her license? If the comment about her career being otherwise clean is true then that's a horrible waste. Maybe because I've watched scrubs, house, green wing, and like 5 other shows set in hospitals, but they all cover the fact that every doctor will kill a patient in their career, as in, almost any other doctor would have saved them on a normal day.
/r/MensRights21/04/19 08:55 PM
24

I feel like the left hand story title is intentionally misleading. Baby was probably coming out the wrong way + some other complications, umbilical cord round the neck, particularly fragile to begin with, etc. Female doctors still get fired for mal practice you know, why pick this particular one to spare?
/r/MensRights21/04/19 07:17 PM
50

Relatable story, I got phimosis as a teen, saw my GP, directed me to a surgeon, they pushed to get me snipped. I decided to go against their suggestion and give the alternatives a go, and a month later of cream and stretches I was fine. Idk if it's surgeons in general or specifically circumcision, but they were all way too gung ho about it. And this was the UK where circumcision isn't the norm.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 06:16 PM
-11

leave soy out of this fam, like drinking titty milk is more manly lol
/r/MensRights15/04/19 07:47 AM
1

You know that the "radical left" isn't some big borg like blob right? I consider myself radically leftwing and yet here I am, all not hating men and shit.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 06:58 AM
-3

Both are wrong not both are right is the message I hope you're sending.
/r/MensRights10/04/19 02:59 AM
1

Wait, it works by lowering testosterone? It must have something else to it, otherwise it couldn't have taken this long.
/r/MensRights26/03/19 12:41 AM
1

In a lot of places you could win a lot of money in a lawsuit if you got that recorded.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/03/19 01:43 PM
1

My very first point was that terry needs to prove what he said? What claims have I even made? None that I haven't proved, the rest was all self admitted hypothesis.
/r/MensRights12/03/19 03:47 AM
1

Yes I'm aware that was the topic, and I said there might be a genetic component between paternal abandonment and other bad traits leading to criminality, never said race was involved, they brought up race, I was the one saying their hypothesis could be wrong. And I specifically gave it as one possible explanation, along with another, neither of which may be correct as there could be 100s of explanations.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 07:00 AM
1

yes, and I said there wasn't anything wrong with saying the odds might be higher, but he said they would be, not they might be
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:54 AM
1

moving the goal posts again, he didn't say there was a risk, or better odds, he said they would be severely malnourished.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:31 AM
1

So he claims, but at the time it wasn't said by anyone that there wasn't a maternal and paternal figure. Besides, you guys agree with that? That single dads that raise kids well but don't involve a maternal figure will still raise severely (metaphorically) malnourished children?
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:20 AM
0

Explain to me how you could possibly get something SO wrong without meaning it even a little bit? Do you know what severe means? Or malnourished? These are not words to be tossed around lightly. Even if he did mean it his inner filter would have made him less likely to say it, yet he said it anyway.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:13 AM
0

Bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a bigot, I'm a bigot technically just because I think murder is wrong. But making a bold claim, with no evidence to back it up, that is also homophobic if not driven by evidence, is what I regard as something bad, so shoot me.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:10 AM
1

My efforts? If you had the time to look through my comments you'd see there are plenty criticising politics on politics.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:08 AM
-2

lol, grasping for straws much? How is it racist if I'm claiming it's based on parents running away from their kids? Unless YOU think black people are more likely to do that based on genetics? Wouldn't that make you the racist?
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:06 AM
-1

it's easy to backtrack after you piss lots of people off, doesn't mean it is genuine.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 05:05 AM
-20

Anything to destroy the idea of traditional marriage and child rearing, right? I didn't even address this the first time, but man, you are misguided if you think saying that same sex couples don't raise severely malnourished (metaphorically) children is attack on traditional marriage and child rearing. You must REALLY hate gay people if you consider calling them competent as an insult to yourself.
/r/MensRights10/03/19 05:25 PM
-28

Um, they are. Just look at black fatherlessness vs crime rate. Have you ever heard of causation vs correlation? Ever considered that maybe there's a hereditary component? And that fathers who bail also are passing on negative qualities genetically? Or maybe men are more likely to leave when the woman is a nightmare, and that nightmare women are worse parents and so raise less good kids? You imply that we are bigots for upvoting terry crews, but default subs like the politics sub will upvote post…
/r/MensRights10/03/19 05:04 PM
-41

Y'all don't want reddit to think you're bigots but here you are upvoting and supporting terry after he said children of same sex parents are severely malnourished (metaphorically). http://www.towleroad.com/2019/03/terry-crews-malnourished/ I'm hoping most the upvotes came from people who didn't read the article... Like seriously, you can maybe make some argument for it being worse on average, after all, one has to be better on average, but making a blanket statement? And for an extreme differenc…
/r/MensRights10/03/19 04:35 PM
4

You clearly don't know more baby's ears are pierced than baby penises are circumcisised. Loss of hearing is one complication that could arise of the former that is not a complication of the latter. When did I say anything to the contrary to this? If you bothered to read my entire comment you'd see I'm all for banning cosmetic surgery on anyone who doesn't ask for it. I used teenage in my example because you suggested banning it all together, when obviously there's a difference between a teenage …
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:38 AM
6

With numbers that small to be concerned about we should prevent any kind of body modifications for any age. Yeah, because having a no consenting party cosmetically altered is totally the same as a teenager wanting to get their own ears pierced /s what part of "your baby isn't your possession" is complicated? Banning all cosmetic modification on non consenting parties is exactly what I want.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 05:09 AM
6

I'm confused, do you have a point? If so what is it?
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:39 AM
6

I meant can we do it ethically lol, obviously there are plenty of legal but immoral things.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 03:21 AM
14

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe Covers it, a tldr: it's painful, 45% of doctors use no anaesthesia, and the ones that do don't use enough. cosmetic surgery on a baby is fucked up in principle regardless of whether it does harm, can we get them a nose ring and a tattoo as well? 100 babies die every year in the USA alone from botched procedures and complications, imagine how many more are seriously harmed but survive.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 02:03 AM
16

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe Covers it, a tldr: it's painful, 45% of doctors use no anaesthesia, and the ones that do don't use enough. cosmetic surgery on a baby is fucked up in principle regardless of whether it does harm, can we get them a nose ring and a tattoo as well? 100 babies die every year in the USA alone from botched procedures and complications, imagine how many more are seriously harmed but survive.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 02:02 AM
12

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe Covers it, a tldr: it's painful, 45% of doctors use no anaesthesia, and the ones that do don't use enough. cosmetic surgery on a baby is fucked up in principle regardless of whether it does harm, can we get them a nose ring and a tattoo as well? 100 babies die every year in the USA alone from botched procedures and complications, imagine how many more are seriously harmed but survive.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 02:02 AM
19

I mean, bombarded is a funny way to say "contacted by everyone they willingly said they'd like to make contact with", I mean you don't swipe right on people you never want to interact with do ya?
/r/MensRights27/02/19 12:53 AM
1

I'm well aware, the US also has one of the worst systems in the western world so...
/r/MensRights26/02/19 06:53 PM
1

She absolutely could get cheated on again in the future. Then, when she does the same thing later in life. Are you going to give her another mulligan on the whole stabbing thing again? Except the odds of doing it again have dropped drastically? If she does it again then yes, obviously she is incapable of learning. Prisons don't make people better people in the UK, time makes people better people (sometimes), and even if she did do time, since he lived and it wasn't premeditated the longest she'd…
/r/MensRights26/02/19 05:29 PM
-1

Privilege? I'm a guy as well dumbass. I doubt you'd be looking at his actions after to justify it as fine. For the third time, I already said I would, completely unprompted by you: the person who can't read or didn't bother. If you aren't going to send someone to jail for stabbing someone, then what would do it? When they're an actual danger, pretty unlikely that this person will get cheated on by a long term boyfriend any time soon, kind of by definition.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 02:24 AM
-2

To your first question, yes, and had already said so like very recently to you, to your second question, didn't even know this one lived, so yes.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 01:49 AM
-7

I disagree, I think a crime of passion, especially one you immediately regret, is not a reason to go to prison. Not saying she should be let off completely, parole + community service + mandatory counselling is enough.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 01:40 AM
-13

It seems I was mistaken, sorry. This does indeed go against the uk law. Still think prison in this situation is uncalled for and not productive, regardless of the sex of those involved.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 12:48 AM
-11

Ok, so a crime of passion, no premeditation, and she immediately tried to help. Plenty of men get let off under the same conditions.
/r/MensRights26/02/19 12:00 AM
1

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/the-drug-dose-gender-gap/ In short, in the USA the ban for women of child bearing age to be in clinical trials were lifted, they didn't retest all those drugs, and those they did were done less rigorously. There are also existing problems, rarely if ever through malice, clinical groups often end up being more like 70% men, this may be due to more men being desperate for money, or more men being humanitarian, I can't say. It's not a slight towards men to …
/r/MensRights25/02/19 09:50 PM
2

If they weren't wrong about the dummies being only men I'd think they'd have a valid point. However in some other regards they are right, a lot of things are tested for men and do suit men better for that reason. Remember we're trying for equality, and not by keeping score about which "team" has it worse and then making everything favour the "team" that has it worse where ever we can. No, we're trying to make each individual issue fair, most the sexist today is at least partly attributable to se…
/r/MensRights25/02/19 08:38 AM
2

It feels like just a month ago we would have downvoted stuff like this and that into oblivion. I'm going to be so disappointed if this sub becomes a r/t_d lite
/r/MensRights06/02/19 04:01 PM
4

lmao, arguing against the pill existing, this sub has gone downhill. Like seriously? Arguing against promiscuity? This isn't the 80s, grow up you prude.
/r/MensRights06/02/19 03:13 PM
1

np man
/r/MensRights28/01/19 01:09 AM
3

ok, what do you want a source on? Because it's clear that men make up the majority of the bottom of the pyramid, do you really need a source to know that more men are homeless, more men are in prison, more men die in combat, more men die at work outside combat, fewer men go to university, etc.
/r/MensRights27/01/19 09:26 PM
7

source to what? it obviously isn't meant to be literal
/r/MensRights27/01/19 06:43 PM
3

youtube is run by people one-two generations older than this generation...
/r/MensRights16/01/19 01:53 PM
14

what? this is a rare exception, and he's only right for the wrong reasons
/r/MensRights15/01/19 04:40 PM
0

Except for the text in parenthesis that seems like a reasonable question and answer, it's dumb to have for wo/men products, short of when there's a legitimate reason, like clothes.
/r/MensRights06/01/19 07:28 AM
346

Don't tell men what to wear, tell thots not to sta...wait did she just cop a full on feel? Fuck that noise.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 10:09 AM
1

I couldn't find anything for that term, I assume it is a synonym of DEFAMATORY PER SE, which is defined as: This term is given to the written/spoken material that is libelous/sladerous and harmful to a person that it will be the basis for a law suit. You going to dodge my question forever? What should a real rape victim do?
/r/MensRights28/12/18 07:01 PM
1

Defamation is the making of a false statement concerning a person or business that damages that person’s or business’s reputation. If a false statement is made and that person or business’s reputation is damaged, there can be legal consequences for the person who made the statement. Defamation can mean many things. Defamation applies to both written and oral statements that are published to third parties. Publication includes the posting of material on the Internet. Defamation can either be a st…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 06:33 PM
1

It's only criminal defamation if they are lying, which you have to prove, just like any other crime. And no, we cannot continue because you have still yet to tell me what you expect a real rape victim to do, I suppose you just want all the raped men to keep quiet about it instead of speaking up? Because if they speak up in your world they go to prison.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 06:10 PM
2

I think we should just leave this person alone, they're clearly beyond reason, people like them make all the decent MRA's look like trash sadly.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:23 PM
1

You want her to be able to come forward and accuse somebody of rape with no possible repurcussion. Right? Wrong, another straw man, if there is proof she lied then it is fine to punish her. False accusation should be punished when you can find the person guilty. I'm just not a moron who thinks that losing the case is proof that she lied. You keep going on about the harm she caused, and how it needs to be punished, which is all true IF SHE IS GUILTY, WHICH YOU NEED TO PROVE, if there's no proof s…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:16 PM
0

So do the stories of people who win cases based on concrete video and DNA evidence, the human memory is shite, it isn't proof of guilt.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:13 PM
1

It's sad because when it happens to you, when your life is totally fucked by a false accusation, only then will you understand. Would you understand how stupid your philosophy is if you were put in prison after being a witness in the trial of the burglar of your house? The notion that a victim needs to be able to prove they aren't lying to come forward is stupid. Innocent until proven guilty, it's not complicated. And btw, what do you mean fabricate evidence? Are you telling me you don't believe…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 03:14 PM
3

So, in your world why would any victim come forward? Not just of rape but of any other crime? Unless they know for sure the police have concrete evidence. And even then it's a risk. Innocent until proven guilty, false accusation is its own trial where the previous accuser is now the defendant and the burden of proof lies on the new accuser (the state). They don't tack on a false accusation sentencing in the rape trial you know. Innocent until proven guilty, I will never falter on that stance, so…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 02:20 PM
2

You think making a false accusation has no ramifications for the accused. Your idea that no harm comes from a false accusation Straw manning me, I never said that, I said they should go to trial like anyone else who allegedly committed a crime. So you want to live in a society where people can falsely accuse others causing permanent damage to their lives while gaining personally from the accusation, as in this case where she was given special accommodations. Another straw man, I never said they …
/r/MensRights28/12/18 02:15 PM
8

She isn't the accused, she is the accuser. Sorry to burst your bubble, but being an accuser in one criminal case doesn't prevent you from being the accused in another criminal case. She is the accuser in a rape, and the accused in a false accusation, not rocket science. You don't believe she is truly a victim. This means you believe she is making a false accusation. And because I'm not a hypocrite I don't want people punished based on my beliefs but rather a fair trial, people with your twisted …
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:58 PM
5

I believe all people accused of crimes should have their identity protected until after they are found guilty. No proof = no guilt.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:38 PM
1

No, but they LITERALLY just said that "guilty until proven innocent" is bad, you want her to be treated as guilty, so lets see you provide the proof that she is guilty.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:20 PM
-8

When did we become a "guilty until proven innocent" society? Yet y'all are asking for her to be doxxed and punished without any proof she lied. You can just punish no one you know? It is allowed.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 11:40 AM
1

wasn't paying to much attention, a guy said it though and pretty sure it was a host
/r/MensRights21/12/18 10:47 AM
4

Wasn't paying attention
/r/MensRights20/12/18 07:09 PM
7

idk I was in the back seat
/r/MensRights20/12/18 06:34 PM
50

Just 30 mins ago on the radio they had a person saying how young men just need to learn to take hits and not retaliate so no, they haven't.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 04:38 PM
1

Doesn't it? Says parents on the picture, not fathers.
/r/MensRights20/12/18 04:34 PM
2

Just improvements and teaching responsibility. Maybe technology will come full circle and men will just be able to take a pill too A pill that aborts a foetus inside someone else? That doesn't sound possible dude, nor does it sound ethical.
/r/MensRights17/12/18 05:31 PM
16

men get the choice of creating the baby, or not so do the women, outside of accident or rape, just like men, this is just suggesting equality, why are you against just men having this option?
/r/MensRights17/12/18 05:02 PM
0

Significant how? The best possible outcome is that future games take heed, my point is that's not worth losing even 100 supporters, let alone the probably several thousand we have already probably lost arguing for "realism" in the poster child of r/gamephysics
/r/MensRights17/12/18 06:13 AM
2

People, don't make this the hill we die on, there are babies getting mutilated, people having their hard earned money stolen, people being falsely imprisoned, etc. Now, this isn't whataboutism, I'm not saying because there are worse things that we shouldn't care about less worse things, it's because shit like this turns away more people than any possible good it could do, even if this changed the gaming industry...which it won't...if we lost 100 supporters in the process it'd be a bad trade. If …
/r/MensRights17/12/18 05:59 AM
0

Which wouldn't bother me if no one got support based on their sex, but they do, so it bothers be greatly.
/r/MensRights15/12/18 04:56 PM
3

She's right, I thought I got 100% on yesterday's test but I only got 96% >:(
/r/MensRights12/12/18 04:33 AM
1

Could you point me to the actual part of the EPA that goes against what I said, it's a big document and you obviously know where it is if you are making the claim. Your point about doctors and nurses only supports my claim because obviously that would be too stupid to print, it's a kids book. You think they would explain that in a kids book? My statement about time out of workforce accounted for different amounts of time out, in that you are making an assumption to assume they don't want you to …
/r/MensRights07/12/18 09:59 AM
1

Could you point me to the actual part of the EPA that goes against what I said, it's a big document and you obviously know where it is if you are making the claim. Your point about doctors and nurses only supports my claim because obviously that would be too stupid to print, it's a kids book. You think they would explain that in a kids book? My statement about time out of workforce accounted for different amounts of time out, in that you are making an assumption to assume they don't want you to …
/r/MensRights07/12/18 09:59 AM
4

could mean hourly pay
/r/MensRights07/12/18 12:41 AM
-6

Yes but he still genuinely stands by his statement, the one under the satire, or at least think that it's a bad message. When in reality "pay" can easily refer to hourly pay, not per annum, striking down the hours worked point. As for job choice, obviously it covers that when it says work with. As for time out of the work force, that's something men can do too, it neither confirms nor denies whether or not they account for that, so assuming it doesn't is presumptuous.
/r/MensRights07/12/18 12:40 AM
8

Maybe give each other shit, but not women as a whole, when making the rules.
/r/MensRights03/12/18 04:45 PM
7

Then they got under sentenced too
/r/MensRights03/12/18 01:25 AM
1

It's funny, I put bi on my university application before I really had come to terms with the fact I was actually bi. Don't worry bro, just say you're bi, they can't ask you to prove it, and most LGBTQ people won't judge.
/r/MensRights29/11/18 03:19 AM
4

Yeah with 3 upvotes, low hanging fruit. There are also people in this sub advocating for FGM, it doesn't define the MRA movement.
/r/MensRights24/11/18 04:19 PM
1

Well I mean, what relationship to the other guy's comment did your comment have? They never mentioned the mural part either.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 02:10 PM
1

Ah that makes it ok then
/r/MensRights16/11/18 01:03 PM
0

Not in general, in a specific case, grammatically yours means the prior, when I mean the latter, hence your straw man.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 08:58 PM
0

Not mutilating genitals trumps equality was my point exactly actually. Equality has value, just turns out certain things out weigh that value, mutilation comes under that category. Are you seriously telling me that if an alien came down and said you could choose, either they'd kill all men, or they'd kill all men and women you'd choose the latter for the sake of equality? If you do you're disturbed, if you don't you're not consistent.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 02:59 PM
1

No one going to point out how fucking stupid picking green eyes is? If she was lucky and there was no evidence on who arrested her, and she was lucky again and they considered it seriously despite 0 evidence, nothing to lose, and everything to gain, there's still a very low chance that a single male cop in the precinct has green eyes and bald too!
/r/PussyPassDenied11/11/18 12:05 AM
1

Nice straw man, if you can't debate without fallacies then I won't debate you at all.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 09:21 PM
-3

People hate MRA's because they hate the idea of equality. I didn't mean you were the sole reason, equality is great, but net suffering is a factor, and if the suffering is great enough it trumps the equality.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 04:24 PM
4

No, you're wrong, mutilating women and men is worse than mutilating just men, or just women. People like you are why people hate MRA's so much.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 03:52 PM
15

That's not true at all, well maybe for you in this specific case, apply that to another issue. For example, circumcision, we don't want FGM legalised, we want MGM to be made illegal. It's pretty damn important that the common standard doesn't become legal circumcision for all. Or maybe pick a non-existent situation, maybe in a parallel universe human chop off every male's arm at birth. Instead of chopping off everyone's arm at birth, I'd say it's pretty fucking important we opt to chop off no on…
/r/MensRights09/11/18 03:03 PM
9

Yes, I gave two examples of having one standard, I'm saying which common standard is superior.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 02:44 PM
33

And the point here is both should be acceptable I hope, because you could easily take it the other way that neither should be.
/r/MensRights09/11/18 12:32 PM
1

Ah ok, so it wouldn't have been a sign of mental illness in your eyes if the girl in the video had someone else hit her with a hammer? Personally I don't see how that makes a difference but apparently you do.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 10:52 PM
0

Ok, now you're straw manning me, I'm equating blood donation to wilfully harming oneself (which it objectively is), something you said was a sign of mental illness "regardless of the reason". I am showing you an example of when wilfully harming oneself is not a sign of mental illness, why is that so hard for you to understand? I'm saying what you said was wrong, and that there are many reasons you might hurt yourself other than mental illness, just like framing someone for rape.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 10:46 PM
0

Ok, you seem to be a moron, so let me say this very slowly: volunteering to donate a vital part of yourself so others might survive. isn't incompatible with: wilfully injuring myself And why does it matter that other survive because of it? You just said REGARDLESS OF THE REASON. If poking a hole in your skin isn't an injury then what is it?
/r/MensRights02/11/18 10:19 PM
0

willfully injuring yourself is a sign of mental illness regardless of the reason. This is what you said, a blood donation checks all the boxes. It is wilfully injuring myself, and you said regardless of the reason so...
/r/MensRights02/11/18 10:11 PM
0

So I'm mentally ill because I donate blood (which involves puncturing the skin)? Nah dude, loads of perfectly mentally healthy things involve getting injured as totally typical.
/r/MensRights02/11/18 10:04 PM
3

No, an expert say they can't be paedophiles in a psychological sense, but our courts aren't for mental crimes, paedophilia is different in a legal context. They're for actions, the only time your mind should matters is when pleading insanity. Possessing child porn, whether you are aroused or not, is exactly as severe as a crime. Basically, the defence played a pretty decent chewbacca defence, supported by our multi use language, yes the prosecution should have pointed this out, but the judge sho…
/r/MensRights26/10/18 03:24 PM
31

This is simply false, judges make their own calls all the time. In this case the JUDGE said that pedophilia is an almost male exclusive disorder.
/r/MensRights26/10/18 09:14 AM
175

Yes, that's why it's hypocritical.
/r/MensRights14/10/18 10:44 PM
5

Not in the same way, the above is probably still legal, an ERA would make it not so, ideally would make it illegal to make rules that mention individual sex at all for state funded things.
/r/MensRights11/10/18 01:13 PM
-11

Ah yes, the ol' "I was pretending to be a fool all along" defense. Solid choice.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 11:17 AM
0

Yes, but not his belief...
/r/MensRights02/10/18 11:01 AM
-5

So a pianist thinks pianos are superior?
/r/MensRights24/09/18 08:31 AM
1

And what about the guys who don't want to be circumcised?
/r/MensRights04/09/18 12:47 PM
-2

Calling out someone's language is playing internet police imo
/r/MensRights24/08/18 12:02 PM
0

No, please don't make us look stupid by upvoting this shit, you shouldn't lose your job for cussing online, even if directed at someone if it's not in a violent way. Considering the guy played internet police on the cussing in the first place, celebrating their first amendment rights was perfectly reasonable even if crass.
/r/MensRights24/08/18 10:24 AM
-10

The accusation on its own CAN cause stress to the marriage Which is why I said it's more flattering to assume he's lying and that his marriage wouldn't be stressed out by something like that.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 03:54 PM
-1

that's a fair point, I don't think the 40 people downvoting me were thinking it however.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 03:32 PM
-3

In case you hadn't noticed, #metoo has made it impossible to engage in even simple interactions with women since one wrong word or move will result in a false accusation. And if you have a decent marriage then a false accusation won't do any harm to the marriage. Because false accusations ruin careers. End of story. yah, if you could read you'd notice that's what I said he's actually worried about, not his marriage.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 03:31 PM
-1

Right, which isn't an issue with his marriage.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 02:58 PM
8

Yes...I agree...that's my point...that's why I'm telling the guy saying we should just believe him (that it's to protect his marriage) that we shouldn't, because as you said, he's afraid of it effecting his career.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 02:42 PM
2

I said shouldn't...lots of things that shouldn't be the case are.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 02:13 PM
-30

Pence? Weren't we talking about ninja? Regardless, I think in a decent marriage false accusations would fall on deaf ears as far as the couple is concerned. You don't need to disprove your cheating accusation to a reasonable spouse without proof of cheating in the first place.
/r/MensRights15/08/18 02:10 PM
-83

Because being alone with women shouldn't be a risk to your marriage, funny thing is if you believe his statement you either think he has a jealous bitch of a wife or he himself is a cheater. By believing he is lying to not seem sexist you actually are assuming the best about his marriage. Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for suggesting the likely hood that he isn't worried about his marriage and is really just worried about his career? Edit 2: Do people not get I'm trying to justify what Digital…
/r/MensRights15/08/18 01:38 PM
3

I mean, they're all valid, and plenty of people are still backwards in certain places, many people still hold the sincere belief that women belong in the kitchen, and if you live in a place where that isn't an uncommon view then this could be pretty empowering. This sub should be the gold standard even though we get hate, shitting on other people's problems because they are less than yours isn't a route to improvement, it's a route to conflict. Instead of arguing that these problems don't matter…
/r/MensRights06/08/18 12:33 PM
2

Also who apologises for cheating with store bought food lol, even if it was real up to that point no one would claim someone spending a few bucks and saying sorry is not settling.
/r/MensRights29/07/18 08:35 AM
1

Clearly you under estimate some people, yes I've seen people use almost that exact same phrase, with sincerity to your insincere point.
/r/MensRights20/07/18 05:55 PM
1

Well considering your upvotes are on controversial I suspect many people couldn't get your sarcasm. Ever heard of poe's law? Even the odd visitor to this sub comments, sometimes they're as stupid as your comment, but sincerely, I had no reason to believe you weren't one of those people since we invented the handy /s for making sarcasm clear in text.
/r/MensRights20/07/18 05:31 PM
1

Except the tone you gave sounded like you approved of it, are you saying you don't?
/r/MensRights20/07/18 05:16 PM
1

cannot walk away from responsibility to a family regardless of whether it is his or not. And over here we called that evil, and you a psycho. Forcing someone to pay money and time into a family that not only do they have no relation to but contains a cheating wife, I have a funny feeling you'd dump a spouse if they cheated on you in a heartbeat and would fight to the death over child support if they got custody of a child that wasn't yours anyway.
/r/MensRights20/07/18 02:29 PM
10

Shit, *due not do...
/r/MensRights18/07/18 10:00 AM
1

Sorry, that's not a solution, that's why I never interpreted it that way. I'm talking about what laws can be enacted, where tax money can be spent, not some unquantifiable cultural shift that can't be forced as no cultural shift can.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:54 PM
1

Ok, still waiting on this solution I asked for 2 and 1 comment ago. If you have no way to tackle what you claim is the cause then the next thing to try and tackle is the second biggest factor and so on, whether or not you are right.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:44 PM
1

The US is still majority white, with way more poor people, so why aren't they a minority when it comes to crime? Because as I explained more black people are poor. Can't you read? And I asked you what the solution was if it really was race (which is isn't, it's wealth), we can actually tackle the prison system, we can't tackle races existing in an ethical manner, ask a fella named Hitler.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:16 PM
3

Wait, so you say race is the reason? I mean it would explain the netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Netherlands and japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_of_Japan (we all know how strict they are). America also has a high ethnic diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity by comparison. I assume since you danced around it (hypocritically not giving a straight statement) you are implying lack of black people dispr…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 06:00 PM
4

Really, why are the netherlands so well off and countries like america not? Give me an example of a country with harsh crime punishments but low crime. It's basically just Japan, and that can attributed to extreme peer pressure that you just can't replicate anywhere else on purpose at this stage.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 01:48 PM
8

I actually agree with what they're doing, prison should be a severe option imo, it should basically be for people you know are going to harm people imminently. If it's anything from property damage to theft, then let them repay their debt with productivity, then it's cheaper and constructive rather than destructive. Problem is with the discrimination and sexism, not the idea.
/r/MensRights27/06/18 09:22 AM
15

Why? Polygraphs are pseudo science bullshit
/r/MensRights21/06/18 04:21 PM
26

Wait, is the only "evidence" being used here polygraphs? In which case he didn't prove himself innocent nor could she have proved him guilty. Polygraphs are junk, there's no difference than if they just slung shit at each other and the first person to land one is deemed truthful. That being said, no proof = innocent legally, at least it should. So I'm with the guy. But the title of this thread is total bullshit if it was just a polygraph and no actual proof.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 03:08 PM
1

I was aware, nothing I said was incorrect then :)
/r/MensRights20/06/18 02:24 PM
3

Oi, please don't associate soy with being a sexist. Besides, soy contains less estrogen than cow's milk, after all, one contains estrogen and one doesn't. So the general argument for a soy boy being a pussy is unfounded at a chemical level, forget social one.
/r/MensRights20/06/18 01:10 PM
1

https://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=foetus
/r/MensRights18/06/18 05:03 AM
11

ok, you do understand that we had no way to tell that she wasn't actually pro choice without this clarification just now right?
/r/MensRights17/06/18 11:08 PM
44

Well I mean, pro-choice doesn't mean you always abort your foetuses...I hope that was obvious
/r/MensRights17/06/18 11:00 PM
2

I assume they felt frustration because dealing with sexist view points is frustrating.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 10:07 AM
4

It's a Jojo reference as there was a notable character that had two arms and was also a rapist. Or just a mistake by the artist who knows.
/r/MensRights12/06/18 10:01 AM
13

Is that not obviously implied?
/r/PussyPassDenied11/06/18 02:56 PM
2

Not really sure how this is mensrights related if the title is accurate. Traditionalism is against mensrights and equality for the sexes in general. Wanting women to be women and men to be men is almost an antithesis of MR.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 09:23 AM
4

Ah yes, that stereotype where men are allowed to be feeble and women must be strong and resilient, so common, not the other way around at allllll.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 10:14 AM
1

Well considering you referred ro half the uni it sounded like a gripe on students, students who don't decide your grade so I failed to make that connection.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 10:56 PM
1

If you think hating your favourite candidate is insanity then you're the odd one out in the world, it shouldn't affect your views on it.
/r/MensRights16/03/18 07:47 AM
1

That's not what you said though, I fail to see how the two connect implicitly. And besides, I'm 100% sure you think there are people who's opinions don't matter, so it's hypocritical of you to complain that others think the same of yours. And before you say you think their opinion matters, it doesn't have to be them, there are people who think the age of consent should be removed, I think their opinion doesn't matter it's so bad and I'm pretty tolerant of opinions, you almost certainly have some…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 06:42 AM
5

I like how you bring up that half the class hates Trump as if it contributes to the insanity. Well over half of Americans hate Trump, Imo rightfully so. And no, before people get on my case, I do not like Hillary or the DNC on the slightest.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 12:49 PM
90

I want to make it clear the problem isn't that it's acceptable for a man to be depicted that way, but that the double standard exists such that it's only okay to depict a man that way.
/r/MensRights05/02/18 07:13 AM
1

Yeah fight off women who want money, a grope for no reimbursement is not on their list of priorities. If it was why did Harvey W get so few willing recipients if any?
/r/MensRights30/01/18 06:39 AM
1

I wouldn't know, I haven't read children's stories since I was a child but when I googled children's stories villians the first result is Miss trunchbull, then shere khan, then the Grinch (who is ultimately a good guy and the villain is the other guy but he's still a guy but so is the good guy so I reckon that one is neutral as it can be), then the wicked witch from Wizard of Oz, then captain hook, then cruella de vil, grand high witch (apparently R Dahl's creation), boggies bunce and bean from …
/r/MensRights29/01/18 10:25 PM
2

A) that was one example, didn't say he was anti woman in that way. B) I also never the law/society was anti woman in that respect either.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 06:33 AM
-1

More Sharia-blue talking points. You conveniently left out "and they let you do it." Retroactive forgiveness isn't consent, besides when a millionaire can ruin you, are you going to say shit after the fact? You think Donald Trump is such a sexy guy women are totally fine with unsolicited groping? You know how few women actually want to be groped out of the blue by an ugly old guy? Sure they exist, but it's not like he can read minds can he and only grope them. Because they take fucking hormones …
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:38 PM
1

Can you think of a specific issue that 99% of women agree on that Trump opposes? See, you assume it has to be an issue. You can be anti women just because you're half as likely to hire a women with an equal resume as a man.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 08:36 PM
1

Uh okay, everything you just said was true, but before you never said the context. You just said "anti woman" is sexist, not "Saying someone is "anti-woman" for opposing abortion implies that all women support abortion", you see how context matters? And you could say it's anti women's rights to appose abortion btw, that's not the same as saying anti women, many rights people think are better to take away, such as anyone who thinks any of all the drugs out there should be illegal, which is a vast…
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:54 PM
2

The phrase anti women is sexist because it implies all women are identical? How do you figure? If I say I'm anti crime it doesn't mean I think rapists and murderers are identical to people who shop lift. Besides, even if it did mean that the person in question had the mentality you described, that doesn't make the phrase sexist, that's on the person who thinks that way. Or are you trying to say literally no one on earth is anti gay? Because using the phrase at all is homosexual because even thou…
/r/MensRights28/01/18 03:53 PM
0

What does this have to do with sexism? I never said he was racist I said he was sexist, although I do believe he is racist btw, and you can be racist and put on appearances, he wasn't always senile, he knew you couldn't be openly racist in the work place without hurting his bottom line. You can also be racist and have friends of the race you hate, there are black people who are racist towards black people, if you think a few people getting along well with trump who happen to be not white is a te…
/r/MensRights28/01/18 03:32 PM
2

He's also a liar, he is anti women, his words mean the paper they're written on, his actions speak loudly. Please, if you actually care about fixing mens' problems and the rise of misandry don't make Trump your go to guy, no. 1 stigma of MRA is sexism and using an actual sexist as a mascot is a good way to amplify that.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:38 PM
10

ah yes, I have a black friend so I'm not racist either /s
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:35 PM
-7

Again, these aren't arguments, I also didn't say he was hitler. He's sexist because he thinks it's fine to grope women without consent but not men (presumably, unless you think he'd welcome a guy's hand to his groin). He banned transsexual people from the military, now while I personally don't believe transsexualism should be celebrated since it's one of many forms of body dysmorphia, that doesn't mean it's not discriminatory to ban them from something where it's been shown to not be problematic…
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:34 PM
0

Are you trying to deflect by claiming no one is racist/sexist/homophobic?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 02:19 PM
10

Yeah he's for himself and people as much like him as he can find, obviously a sexist, please don't continue to associate sexist men with mensrights, hard enough dealing with that stigma from external sources without adding internal ones too.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 01:03 PM
4

What? I must have misread Hansel and Gretel because I swear it's an evil step mom not step dad. Like I'll defend mensrights to the death but weak complaints like this hurt the cause more than they help it.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 01:01 PM
14

Actual rape culture that these people think that is socially acceptable, reverse the sexes and you'd barely get the odd trucker saying that kind of stuff.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 11:52 PM
4

While hindsight is twenty twenty, I'd seriously have considered getting a camera set up with a mic in your safe room after this started. Sounds like it's too late now but maybe if you are prepared from now on you may be able to catch damning evidence to support your case and help in the divorce. It's less legally dubious when it's your own house but sounds like it's past that stage for good so I'd double check if where you live is one party consent.
/r/MensRights27/12/17 10:51 PM
1

Can't watch this bc on a train with no headphones. Anyone able to drop a quick summary? I assume it's not just women should be subservient to men or it wouldn't be rising.
/r/MensRights23/12/17 06:16 PM
1

[it is a submission about] differences between the sexes How? gender issues, sexual exploitation So we except fpm posts now? It's related to mgm! It's a gender issue! It's sexual exploitation.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 10:34 PM
1

It's objectively not DIRECTLY related. It's not censorship to remove posts that aren't sub appropriate. Would you call it censorship to remove a post of cute cats?
/r/MensRights07/12/17 08:59 PM
1

I said minority, 49% is a minority, though obviously it wasn't that high either.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 08:04 PM
1

Yeah except many people are commenting the same thing on all these similar AA suicide posts with numerous upvotes because it is as even yourself admitted not directly mensrights related. My rule is simple, enforceable, consistent, and not arbitrary, must be directly related to mensrights, yours is a gut feeling, a terrible rule to go by.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:48 PM
1

A lot of material may be repetitive but this isn't and it is worthy of mention here. So basically you have no way to differentiate the two other than gut feeling? Man, that's a sick rule, better put that in the sidebar mods - "crossposts from TiA are allowed if DevilishRogue feels it in his guts"
/r/MensRights07/12/17 05:03 PM
3

While obviously not guaranteed, and I think these sickos should be held accountable in some way, it's unlikely that this was more than the straw that broke the camel's back. Another event could have done it, or just time and ongoing current problems. You already have to be in a pretty bad way to kill yourself over a minority of people objecting to who you have sex with.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 04:49 PM
4

Then you mean to say literally any post on tumblrinaction or kotakuinaction belongs here? Any anti-sjw post? You may think it's fine when one anti-sjw post is here but what about if the sub was 99% anti sjw and the rest about the actual mensrights issues it should be about?
/r/MensRights07/12/17 03:20 PM
21

This is extremely loosely related to mensrights, just a "common enemy" scenario. I don't think it belongs here despite being a very sad event.
/r/MensRights07/12/17 01:54 PM
2

only daily? you gotta pump those numbers up son
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:39 PM
3

Definitely a few miso.s here but ofc people only pay attention to them despite making up a small fraction of us. Tbh at this point even if every user was on best behaviour and beacons of moral light for a year straight then shitty "news" sources like this would still say the same stuff.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 03:44 PM
1

Lol very clear statement, "under no circumstances" but self defence is okay! Is not clear.
/r/MensRights04/12/17 06:39 AM
1

It's not ok to physically hurt someone, period. I assume that period doesn't include self defence? I mean you're going to find very few allies that disagree with harming someone in self defence. Letting someone slap someone around because they think they deserve it is a dangerous situation that shouldn't exist in a modern society. Again, twisting words, do you ever interpret what someone says as actually what they say or do you have to change its meaning? This isn't letting someone, it's doing i…
/r/MensRights03/12/17 11:49 PM
1

Except the whole that was specifically directed towards abusers part. You seriously don't think it's okay to slap someone who has committed domestic abuse?
/r/MensRights03/12/17 05:59 PM
42

It's hyperbole, very few are actually blocking it, but some of them encourage going after non-stem degrees like gender studies and say that going to the police is a waste of time.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 04:47 PM
0

So congrats you're both assholes? She hadn't said anything wrong until after you misconstrued her.
/r/MensRights03/12/17 04:44 PM
0

That's fair out of context, but for all I know it's a post of a study on how men are more likely to domestically abuse if they have only one parent and girls are less likely or something. My point is without context I don't think you can make that judgement in this case. And even if the context isn't in her favour the response is still worse.
/r/MensRights02/12/17 07:59 AM
8

No, dude, you're making us look bad. Anyone with a basic level of reading comprehension can clearly tell "some men" in this context is men who are abusers. While vigilantism isn't great, I think a slap as revenge for domestic abuse is kinda fine.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:45 PM
2

I think people just generally have some twisted idea that pretty much any belief other than "murder is bad" is politically weighted. Though if I were to guess I'd say mr is more left just because reddit is and also I'd consider mr a progressive list of ideas and unsurprisingly conservatives are a bit more conservative. But it doesn't matter, mr itself isn't political even if there's different than expected distribution.
/r/MensRights01/12/17 09:40 PM
3

Also how on earth is he supposed to find a date? Isn't he "in a position of power" over 99% of people? He could walk into McDonalds and get someone fired probably more easily than ruining any of these girls' careers.
/r/MensRights15/11/17 03:14 PM
2

It's crazy that people can fall for this satire, or maybe OP is also being satirical and I am the fool...
/r/MensRights24/09/17 09:14 PM
6

Actually I did go from not being vegetarian to vegetarian one day on a whim, not even a poster's worth of motivation so I could see it happening with a poster! Just abuse is kind of different in that it's individual things, and everyone controls to some degree, it's not as objective as don't eat meat so it's much harder to change on a whim.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 06:16 PM
20

Extremely well spoken! Never missed a beat.
/r/MensRights24/09/17 08:21 AM
1

You gave me a user name which I ctrl F'd and did not come up with any comments pertaining to definitions of insanity. And that's (what you just gave) not an answer, saying that any criminal can't just say they're insane does not mean the definition used isn't subjective. The definition I was linked and I replied with WAS subjective and I highlighted why. When you're ready to produce this non-subjective definition please do but I cannot find it using your instructions. Edit: definition of subject…
/r/MensRights12/09/17 03:32 PM
1

Worm my way out? He said it wasn't subjective I gave clear concise points as to why the law he linked was subjective. That's not worming out that's called a retort.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 02:00 PM
0

Uh reply to wrong comment? I don't know when we talked but you're not the person I'm replying to here so I'll need some context.
/r/MensRights12/09/17 05:26 AM
-3

I asked for a non-subjective one didn't I? insanity n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the District Attorney or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confi…
/r/MensRights10/09/17 08:51 PM
-2

Oh really? Please share this non-subjective definition then.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 08:02 PM
-2

What does insane even mean? Depending on the definition used one could say there's no way she isn't insane but then you might as well say all serious criminals are.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 07:45 PM
23

I'm not a white supremacist, but I can sure as hell see the road to becoming one clearly enough. Try telling working class guys like me that we have more power and opportunity then Obama's kids because we are white men... and you will see more and more guys just give up fighting and become the monster in the closet. This is basically it in a nut shell, but also no one has a blissful life all the time, even if you're in a rich family, who lets you do whatever you want and never work a day in your…
/r/MensRights18/08/17 02:15 PM
1

She said they were poor (surprisingly so) and it was depressing? Sorry but if you have all those thing her Mom pointed out in the last 30 years you were not poor. Also she jumps right to threatening to block her mother. Mom here could ignore her in the first place but she shouldn't have to.
/r/MensRights18/08/17 06:09 AM
1

Yeah but this is one independent asshole, for all we know she could be an MRA. There's no way to tell because assholes can come from anywhere and her assholism isn't of some sort of group except maybe ungrateful bratism.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 09:05 PM
3

This isn't really the kind of content we want the sub to be known for, this is an isolated incident of one women being a an asshole, turns out, people can be assholes, it's nothing of note.
/r/MensRights17/08/17 08:31 PM
7

More like: Situation Dad Mom Shopping Wow you've got your hands full Wow you've got your hands full At the doctor's office Okay I'll do my job Okay I'll do my job Out with friends Hey did you [insert thing relevant to your interests here], also how are the kids? Hey did you [insert thing relevant to your interests here], also how are the kids? At the park Uh, police hello, there's a man here at the park and I'm afraid he's a paedophile You should probably watch your kids at the park in case of a…
/r/MensRights06/08/17 05:24 PM
1

Pain is measureable. You can't reliably measure the pain anyone but yourself feels. It's on par with consciousness. Foetuses could not walk even if they had the physical capacity to, just as freshly born babies. There's no electrical signals from their brain until 6 weeks or so, anything before that they are medically brain dead, if not worse. Moving limbs deliberately is what I meant to imply, it's simple to make a machine that has moving limbs, a desk fan has moving limbs even, I meant the tho…
/r/MensRights19/07/17 09:35 PM
1

Your first sentence doesn't explain anything, it's proactive, retroactive means it applies to things in the past not the future. If you retroactively make something illegal for example, it means you make it illegal now AND anyone who did that thing in the past has also broken the law even if it wasn't illegal then. And there's no metric possible to measure consciousness, or how much pain something feels that isn't yourself, so how can torture be illegal by your logic? You can measure intelligenc…
/r/MensRights18/07/17 06:25 PM
1

Firstly, those are two separate statements. In response to the first statement: how is it retroactively? I said they were never a person, never worth protecting the life of more than the protection desired by those who it belongs to, in this case the mother because it's their body. I said they have potential to become a person so it'd be immoral to say, drink while pregnant without intending to get an abortion because once they are conscious they will likely suffer from it. If you destroy a foet…
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:19 PM
7

It's a shame because literally everything but the last one doesn't make you look like a bitch Imo. That and the dog filter if you got rid of both of those you'd only have to be cautious.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/07/17 07:17 AM
1

I said effect them when they become conscious? If they are destroyed then obviously they won't become conscious. I thought that much was obvious.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 07:10 AM
1

No I said effect a thing before it becomes conscious such that it effects it when it becomes conscious. I actively thought about this before I typed it originally, I'm not an idiot.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 07:03 AM
1

Well it does seem a bit weird depending on how many lines there are. I mean even if the two main characters are male statistically they should talk to at least some females. Though in the trailer I swear a female ape asks Cesar about the little girl. If they're just factually wrong then sure but otherwise it seems like a somewhat reasonable thing to point out as unlikely.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 06:30 PM
1

Personally what I think gives a thing a right to body autonomy is consciousness, and if an action will effect a thing when it becomes conscious but performed before it becomes conscious then it's violating its body autonomy too. This applies to animals too in my mind. If you destroy a foetus it won't become conscious so no, that doesn't apply to a foetus. And abortion isn't removing the foetus from a shared body, just like a mole, or arm, the flesh in the womb that isn't conscious is part of the…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 04:04 PM
1

Yes you're right I was confusing you for someone else on the self viability thing. Personally what I think gives a thing a right to body autonomy is consciousness, and if an action will effect a thing when it becomes conscious but performed before it becomes conscious then it's violating its body autonomy too. This applies to animals too in my mind. And you keep saying one twin can survive on their own and the other can't, doesn't matter, to survive he has to take half his twin's body, they don'…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 07:15 AM
1

Well if you don't think drunk driving deserves to be a crime then I can see why reason doesn't work on you.
/r/MensRights17/07/17 06:51 AM
1

It was never my view that self viability is the metric to define what is a person. You were the one who first said that a sperm and egg wouldn't survive on their own and that's why they don't need to be protected. But even if I did think that, the twin can survive on his own, it's just you're removing half his body. If I took out your heart could your survive on your "own" of course not, so if you separate the twins you're removing half his body. You may be giving him full ownership of one half …
/r/MensRights17/07/17 06:49 AM
1

Well since they share a body they can't get the surgery unless they both consent. If you co own a house with someone they can't just have it torn down because they own it because you own it too. Co owning something isn't really different from being a sole owner, in all cases with autonomy all owning people should consent, it's just when it's only one person then only they need to consent.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 10:34 PM
1

And they'd both live/die if they don't separate? I mean you have yet to give a reason to separate so why would they?
/r/MensRights16/07/17 09:27 PM
1

But drunk driving isn't proactively killing a person? In fact I rarely ends in a person dying.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 09:13 PM
1

I said it's the moral equivalent of drunk driving. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Tell me why trying to conceive isn't worse than drunk driving. Both start with a wilful action, followed by a chance of death by accident. Only conception has a much higher likelihood of leading to foetus death. Tell me why you think one is okay and the other isn't in detail rather than this wishy washy deflection.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 07:06 PM
1

And a foetus will never be a human by itself at early stages either? And you literally just said collection of cells (which btw, neither an egg or sperm are more than one cell by themselves) that's all a foetus, or adult human, or anything in between, is.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 07:05 PM
2

Okay so it's okay to kill a sperm or egg because they can't survive on their own but not a foetus that can't? I fail to see where you justify the inconsistencies in your opinions?
/r/MensRights16/07/17 06:59 AM
1

Oh my, let me make this clearer since you still don't get it. Attempted procreation vs drunk driving, nothing about abortion right now. All I'm saying, is that you think a foetus deserves to live then attempting to procreate is like drunk driving, you're putting a life at risk (much higher risk than drunk driving even). I'm saying you can't view abortion as murder without also viewing attempted procreation as reckless, and immoral or you're a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 06:57 AM
1

I literally highlighted it in a bullet point to driver it home. Willful action is either attempting to procreate or driving drunk Accidental death is either a miscarriage or person hit by a car You agree driving drunk is a wilful action (like I said, and never said otherwise, so I have zero clue how you think I said it wasn't!) do you agree attempting to procreate is a wilful action? I mean you should, by definition"attempting" anything is wilful.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 08:27 PM
2

An early fetus left to itself won't live either. If your cut off line is when a fetus would survive outside the care of a womb then that's different and less insane. I still disagree, but if that's your view make it clear because it's extremely different from the view you have made so far as I have interpreted.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 08:24 PM
1

So driving drunk isn't immoral? If I kill someone it's not a willful action, it's just the result of another separate wilful action. Just like if you attempt to procreate that's a wilful action, and if it ends up in an accidental death (miscarriage) too bad right? Just to make this comparison crystal clear. Willful action is either attempting to procreate or driving drunk Accidental death is either a miscarriage or person hit by a car What's the difference? Other than the fact that driving drunk…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 07:59 PM
2

I'm for body autonomy for people? I never said only women should get body autonomy just that they get it denied in the case of abortion in a lot of places. Btw, if you don't use a condom a sperm and egg would have likely been a person eventually, so why don't they get body autonomy, why does body autonomy begin at conception in your eyes?
/r/MensRights15/07/17 07:55 PM
3

I actually got curious, did a bit of research. "Among females who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is roughly 10% to 20% while rates among all fertilisation is around 30% to 50%." So basically under your philosophy anyone trying to get pregnant is evil because they're going to be risking another human life at atleast 30% chance of dying.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 07:06 PM
3

I, and most people in the western world, don't consider a foetus a person. If you believe they are then I urge you to never cause a pregnancy (whether by having a child if you're female or impregnating one if you're male) because a decently large percentage of conceptions end with the death of the unborn, whether unnoticed or not depending on the stage. So basically by causing a pregnancy you're rolling a dice to have a decent odds of killing someone if you consider them worthy of body autonomy …
/r/MensRights15/07/17 06:53 PM
5

I feel like you'd change more people's minds if you didn't leave out plenty of women's issues. Whether you believe men have it worse or not, the fact that you left out lack of body autonomy in a lot of places when it comes to abortion for women will instantly discredit you to a lot of people. In fact, anything that shows life is a breeze for anyone won't ever persuade them. Almost no one thinks their life is a breeze, if you act like it is they'll assume you're wrong about the rest as well becau…
/r/MensRights15/07/17 03:12 PM
2

Reminds me of when a brand gets a blonde (who irl usually isn't ditsy in the slightest) to act all "this shampoo makes my hair shiny, here's a scientist to tell you all the hard stuff", yeah, like she can't also read from a script. I also think it's less about sexism in both these cases, but still annoying, I think what's really happening is that they over estimate the stupidity of customers and don't want them to feel alienated when the face of the product understands it really well and they do…
/r/MensRights11/07/17 07:37 AM
3

Eh, if it's clear (which it may not be) that he really did, then assaulting him without killing him, and at that moment rather than a delayed premeditated revenge, seems like it shouldn't warrant significant punishment. However the problem isn't here, it's when the situation is reversed a guy cannot get away with assaulting a women who grabs his ass or even groin, that's the problem imo. However whether you're in the "women getting off an evil crime because she's a woman" or "men can't defend th…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 10:38 PM
1

Gotta be like me and never interact with anyone irl and spend 100% of your time either at home on the internet or at work under CCTV. Full coverage baby.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/17 11:26 PM
43

Worst part isn't the losing track of the kid, or even jumping to conclusions and punching first asking later, it's the fact that despite witnesses claiming they saw him asking people if they were the girl's parents he still stands by the claim. Like, who the fuck kind of stranger would lie to protect a suspected paedophile? They have zero incentive to make that up. Unless of course he thinks it's normal for a kidnapper to ask around for 10 minutes for the parents before hand.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 04:30 PM
1

I consider myself hyper progressive, I support decriminalisation of nudity in both public and media (without it ranking up the age restriction). I don't think we should even use the concept of genders if it's not a synonym of sex but rather referring to the social construct (and if it is, a synonym of sex why use it anyway?). I also support universal income, universal healthcare, free university/college, but not affirmative action by race/sex or granting money towards people taking courses of mi…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 11:12 AM
1

Yet you just stated that making things worse brought about the red pill movie, so which is it? An abundance of this attitude enough to make a documentary or almost no one like this?
/r/MensRights20/06/17 09:06 AM
1

pretty sure we wouldn't need one to if there was almost no one like this guy.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 08:41 AM
1

Of course you don't have to, I never said you have to. I said we have to for things to improve.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 08:31 PM
9

While I think they have every right to be pissed off, being the bigger person here is important. No one is going to listen who's on the fence to someone telling them to eat a dick. MRAs have enough hate to deal with, lets not make things worse, the solution is to be so undeniably better, the greyer we are the harder to breaker preconceptions.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 05:12 PM
2

You see that last sentence I wrote? Your point is encompassed within it.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 07:45 AM
22

Neither "group" deserves more credit than the other, credit should be handled on a case by case basis, there are shit mothers, there are shit fathers, there are great mothers, there are great fathers. Celebrating Motherhood/Fatherhood, as in the groups, should be done on equal terms of course.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:58 AM
1

I didn't misinterpret it. He said he did History and Environmental Science and it's implied from his tone that the STEM (Env. Sci.) part was harder. Is there something else I'm missing? Please tell me. Even if I was stubborn you have to actually tell me instead of being cryptic about it.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 05:47 PM
1

So you actually gonna address what I said or just going to say "ha, I'm more popular so I'm right".
/r/MensRights17/06/17 05:33 PM
0

You see that deleted comment? Consider it might be relevant before you made your assumptions? Deleted said that stem degrees are all equally as hard. Guy replies to deleted saying "well I did a stem degree and history and stem was obviously harder" I reply to him and say that history being easier than stem doesn't prove that all stem degrees aren't equally hard, even though you're conclusion is correct, the argument is terrible. Put it this way, if someone on a thread claimed all Ford cars had t…
/r/MensRights17/06/17 04:31 PM
0

I'm aware, however the comment he replied to was the discussion "topic" and that topic was them talking about how stem degrees are equally hard. Do you not think that replying to that saying "well stem degrees aren't all equally hard, I mean I took 1 stem degree and another degree and they weren't equally hard" is a contribution to the discussion? It'd be like replying to a guy who said all Fords have the same horsepower with "well I have a Honda and a Ford and they have different horsepower"
/r/MensRights17/06/17 04:22 PM
-1

Yes, the deleted comment did. Are you all right? Btw, what do you think they claimed? You actually think they claimed all degrees are equally hard or what?
/r/MensRights17/06/17 03:21 PM
-3

not sure what I'm getting downvoted for, env. sci. Is obviously STEM, but without another stem course how can you say one stem degree is harder than another? Obviously no one was claiming ALL degrees were equally hard, but they did claim all stem degrees were as hard as each other.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 03:16 PM
-3

not sure what I'm getting downvoted for, env. sci. Is obviously STEM, but without another stem course how can you say one stem degree is harder than another? Obviously no one was claiming ALL degrees were equally hard, but they did claim all stem degrees were as hard as each other.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 03:16 PM
4

We're not trying to say girls aren't academically superior, we're saying it shouldn't be stigmatised to state the possibility that men are workplace superior. While many will of course say things have been changed unfairly to suit girls in academia that doesn't change the fact and is a separate point.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 03:06 PM
1

Women start puberty earlier, and so they develop faster, including mentally in both maturity and intelligence (under the same circumstances). And being good in school doesn't make you good at work, school is a low pressure, low randomness situation where every answer is known. Real life relies MUCH less on regurgitating information.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 03:03 PM
-17

History isn't STEM: Science Technology Engineering Mathematics. There are still harder STEM degrees than others but yours was not an example by definition. edit: not sure what I'm getting downvoted for, env. sci. Is obviously STEM, but without another stem course how can you say one stem degree is harder than another? Obviously no one was claiming ALL degrees were equally hard, but they did claim all stem degrees were as hard as each other.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 02:57 PM
1

If the standard is not sexual organs, but rather genitalia, then not allowing breasts would be a double standard. But you literally said the Alabama and Alaskan (the only two states laws I read, in Alphabetical order) laws that only refer to genitalia "obviously meant breasts too" and weren't committing a double standard by banning them. Man I'm done with you, non stop contradictions is worse than having a bad world view, especially in a debate. I'd rather debate things with a consistent Racist …
/r/MensRights16/06/17 12:11 AM
1

New question. Since you categorise breasts as sexual organs you claim there's no double standard for treating them like a penis or vagina since they are also sexual organs correct? And that there's also no double standard for countries that let people expose breasts but not the other two if they don't categorise breasts as sexual organs, correct?
/r/MensRights15/06/17 11:53 AM
1

If not that then how about if the law required anyone who couldn't curl a weight of X mass, where X mass was chosen to be a value that meant a vast majority of men could curl it but a vast majority of women couldn't curl it, has to wear a Hijab. I'm aware this one and many of the others are arbitrary, but it's not inconsistent, the same rules apply to men and women. But lets say there was a consensus that this was the way it should be done, so it's no longer arbitrary either, is it still sexist?…
/r/MensRights15/06/17 11:31 AM
1

Choosing sex organs as immodest, fine? I mean in itself it's not a justifiable reason, no different from declaring all facial hair as immodest but I'll roll with you. What if the laws were worded such that the illegality was based on the thickness and spacing of head hair, being that hair within a certain range thickness and spacing was immodest would that be sexist if it just happened that the range chosen was 100% correlated with sex, such as the chosen sex organs do. Or what if they had a dif…
/r/MensRights15/06/17 10:30 AM
1

So we in the west are allowed to declare only breasts of women immodest/lewd but other places aren't allowed to declare only hair of women immodest/lewd? Men don't have to wear bikini tops, so I have still yet to see you show how the Hijab laws are inconsistent, at least compared to our breast laws.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 09:09 AM
1

So laws requiring women wear Hijabs aren't sexist? Or if they are, why are they inconsistent?
/r/MensRights15/06/17 07:32 AM
1

So when they mean the "sexy bits" it can both simultaneously include female breasts in one country and not be sexist, but not include female breasts in another country and neither be sexist to anyone? What if instead of female breasts it was a different body part that they included in "sexy bits"?
/r/MensRights15/06/17 01:52 AM
1

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193 So when the legal standard is genitals can't be shown such as in the Alabama or Alaska laws (not going to read every state's laws!), and breasts are not genitals http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/external+genitalia. Do you agree that if women are arrested for exposing their breasts (when a man otherwise wouldn't) under the vague "public lewdness" even if it's completely innocent that is sexism?
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:05 PM
1

I'm a loyal sub to mensrights, r/feminism jokes about killing men and doesn't view circumcision of babies for no reason a problem, some even say it's a good thing, etc, not my cup of tea. Btw what's so outrageous? You said it yourself, many people don't want women flashing their breasts in public, you even said how breast feeding is controversial? Yet you think it's outrageous that a law maker with those beliefs wouldn't make laws to control it? Or you mean the drug war thing, well unless you co…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:47 PM
1

My non-hypothetical (why call it a hypothetical, that's what really happened with crack vs cocaine) wasn't meant to try and draw the line between men and women's breasts being the same, I thought that'd be obvious when I acknowledged female breasts as being commonly viewed as sexual organs. The case study was meant to show the fact that a law can be made "fair" and not in itself sexist or racist but is intended to effect one sex or race more than the other, the law being made with sexist purpose…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:20 PM
1

It's not a fact independent of consensus, words have definitions, those definitions are derived from people. Much like saying blue is electromagnetic waves between XHz and YHz, different values can be decided on but ultimately scientific bodies have probably settled on exact numbers for different colours and have a consensus on it. Much like the consensus is that sexual organ means an organ of the reproductive system, it could easily have another similar definition if the consensus was different…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 10:39 AM
1

I addressed even the most reasonable interpretation of your hypothetical there's only one interpretation and you didn't address it, you just said "well that's stupid" you never gave reason why.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 01:10 AM
1

When you decide to refute the hypothetical I laid out rather than saying "this is unreasonable, there wouldn't be a consensus that all men trying to be primary school teachers are pedophiles" we can carry on. Ofc it's unreasonable, but arguments have to hold up against hypotheticals, even if the situation is unlikely.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:35 AM
1

So a consensus on who should be allowed to teach primary schools isn't arbitrary either? And it's not discrimination because the rule is "people with a high suspected risk of being paedophiles" which isn't a sexist law on it's own. So hypothetically if there was a consensus that all men were at high risk of being paedophiles if they try to get a job as a primary school teacher I can't see by your logic how it'd be sexist to deny them jobs. Also a consensus is a collection of personal whims, I fa…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:36 PM
1

Okay, I refuse to talk to you any further because you're clearly delusional or trolling. You literally said this in the same comment: adjective: arbitrary based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. And The cut-off line is also not arbitrary. It is based on what people, men and women, are comfortable with. No one can contradict themselves that hard and not be trolling or too delusional to debate.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:21 PM
1

So you found another example of how the law favours one sex other the other. Thanks for supporting my argument. Kinda getting mixed messages here with you being an unreasonable brainwashed person whilst simultaneously acknowledging the same problem but when the sexes are reversed.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 02:49 PM
1

You've explained they are different. You say that reason is why they are forced to cover them, and claim that means it's not arbitrary. However you've yet to connect the dots as to why being different means they should be covered. You've yet to explain why you should cover up things people find sexually attractive. By definition you acknowledge it is arbitrary by stating that any part of the body is sexually attractive to a degree, if the cut off point is breasts, why? If there's no reason other…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 02:45 PM
1

Men's nipples are sexually stimulating too, many people find pectorals sexual, and a cut guy with a nice physique will often turn women on more from seeing their chest than their dick. There's a difference between women and men's hair as well, does that mean we should make Hijab's mandatory? Why does breast feeding make them sexual? I can feed a baby with my hand so should I wear gloves? Or is it the fact they produce milk (that men sometimes can to yet as I said don't have to cover up). So let …
/r/MensRights13/06/17 10:59 AM
1

A) some men can lactate, they are not required to cover up B) why exactly does that make them sexual? C) I literally said in my comment (which you obviously didn't bother reading properly) that most places let you expose your breasts to breast feed even when you have to cover them otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:36 AM
1

Why are women's breasts sexual organs and men's aren't. Neither are needed/used for sex/reproduction. And if they are, that in itself is the sexist part of the law. It's arbitrary, and if it's because they are used for breast feeding which is literally the only difference in function, because in most places you're allowed to expose them in order to breast feed even if you can't otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 09:04 AM
13

They can't walk around topless in many places men can. Or be topless on film/tv without raising the age rating to at least a 15.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:21 AM
4

She could have stopped at equality? She added to the page by it, so not sure what you mean.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 11:35 PM
73

She's also wrong, there isn't equal rights, otherwise why would we have this sub anyway. Both sides have unfair laws against them/in favour of them. People will always disagree on who have it worse but we both have it worse than equal. I appreciate the sentiment.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 11:01 PM
6

Tell me about it, my penis stopped me getting several thousand pounds on my Computer Science course.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 06:24 PM
2

I never said there was, in fact my wording heavily implies that fact.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 04:36 PM
1

Okay? But it's not just feminist subreddits that have a majority of misandrists, most times on almost any sub when mensrights are brought up it's shot down as misogynistic and whether we deserve it or not (we do not ofc) it's a problem changing laws if no one agrees with you. So unless all you want to do is complain about how unfair things are without actually improving things then yes, it's your problem too.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 06:21 AM
1

Not sure what you are implying/saying. Of course there shouldn't be sexist laws but the topic of the thread is why does the rest of reddit think mensrights is a misogynistic circlejerk.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 12:03 AM
20

There are some misogynists here. Just like there are plenty misandrists on TwoX. And both subs have genuine people who don't wish ill on the other sex. I have seen the odd hateful or at least non-constructive posts reach high before too. Also it's important for their circle jerk to exaggerate these.
/r/MensRights10/06/17 06:15 PM
2

I didn't like the long lead up to the "actual movie", post when the Germans find the island. Maybe it's because I watched King Arthur a week ago and loved the montage in that (very fast paced, about 15-20 years go by in like 5 mins but you still get all the info you need). Also there were a few weird shots, like the jump at the end looked off? Like more clearly CGI than other times, I had that feeling of sometimes noticeable CGI a lot. I found it a bit weird that after killing hundreds of people…
/r/MensRights06/06/17 04:13 AM
2

Not surprising, they only changed it less than a week ago after all.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 03:48 AM
2

Yeah, this is exactly what's gone down almost certainly. The annoying fact is that the state is such that one is so much more common than the other not the search algorithm itself.
/r/MensRights04/06/17 03:50 PM
14

Also 50 times instead of once. And Brock at least has the world against him, this woman will be forgotten and they might ness with the victims world view. I know I'd feel better knowing someone who horribly wronged me and got off easy in court is remembered for it for a long time rather than forgotten in a week.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 03:04 AM
3

Think of it this was, a botched circumcision is rare but will likely ruin your child's sex life. Foreskin related conditions are somewhat common though still not frequent by any means but the absolute worst thing that can happen is they need a circumcision... but really 99% of the time they just need some minor hygiene improvements.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 05:04 AM
2

I think everyone's voice is completely lost, people are self absorbed. If a girl came coming and said that she was raped, the same kinds of people would get up in arms about how much they care and how they need to be put in prison, but it's not them listening, it's just a preprogramed reaction they've learned after years of conditioning. Obviously it matters not just because of the double standard but because of the actual poor treatment, I guess I was just trying to be philosophical and let you…
/r/MensRights01/06/17 04:59 AM
3

The lady is supposed to be "you", and it's calling out nimby-ism. Imagine the poster was about wind turbines and you'll see what I mean I hope.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 04:50 AM
5

I feel bad for all the villages that could have had clean water if they had this money instead.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 04:44 AM
0

I think it's a principle thing, about segregation and slippery slopes and all that. Personally despite generally being quite socialisty, pro government programs, and left wing ideology I still don't mind private businesses choosing who they serve, as long as they don't falsely advertise (e.g. cake shop has sign saying they do cakes for any occasion but refuse to cater a gay wedding)
/r/MensRights01/06/17 04:42 AM
14

What the actual fuck? Is he an "untouchable" or is she like royalty or something because otherwise as fucked up as South Asia can be this seems beyond that. Not that those statuses justify it in anyway at all, just that I could understand why in a backwards place that adheres to the concept of untouchable I could at least imagine the situation... Did the dude actually die as well?
/r/MensRights28/05/17 03:32 PM
1

Yeah it's a shame because although I'm not into communism I still like the odd bourgeois/old money bashing thread and it's a shame not to be able to comment or post but oh well, morons will be morons.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 09:34 PM
2

And they can't comment on circumcision, or mens suicide rates and so on.
/r/MensRights05/05/17 05:47 AM
1

The difference between "the" and "a" is certainly huge in this context.
/r/MensRights01/05/17 08:59 PM
0

I know this may depress you, but it's really not.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/04/17 06:34 AM
18

Pretty sure it's white paper in a shot with a lot of yellow light.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/04/17 04:38 AM
2

If you were to deposit if anonymously are you sure that'd still be the case? Like will police really just let someone off the hook for murder if you dropped off a tape of them doing it and there was nothing else to pin them with?
/r/MensRights10/04/17 07:40 PM
2

No need to tell her? You're trying to get her in prison not to make up with her.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 06:33 PM
3

In these situations I'd work extremely hard to film it, even though there are laws against that in many places most won't completely dismiss it as evidence.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 12:54 PM
2

I never said I didn't care? And a 50 year old study is less reliable than the BBC? learn the definition of proof, what your presented was evidence not proof.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 07:54 AM
1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629 so unless 90% of gay people lie about it, which seems unlikely considering there's very little stigma on being gay in the uk, then there's less than 1 in ten.
/r/MensRights21/03/17 12:25 AM
10

Just so you know, LGBT includes B and T which are not necessarily gay, in the UK less than 1 in 10 people are gay. And I'm not attacking the statistic, a statistic is a statistic the only way you could attack it is by accusing the methods of generating it to be flawed such that it isn't a valid statistic. I'm attacking it's use, you think people wouldn't throw a fit if instead of all the talk about women's breast cancer it was replaced with talk of men's breast cancer which is the minority of br…
/r/MensRights20/03/17 11:07 PM
49

Except less than 1 in ten people are gay so it means gay people are more likely to be homeless which is a bad thing. 1 in 4 people aren't women, 1 in 2 are, which means men are 3 times more likely to be homeless than women. If you don't see that as a problem... and it's sexist because it's highlighted to say how women are suffering and how awful that is, when they are suffering significantly less in this instance.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 10:22 PM
2

It's r/all, some before filtered existed as well.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 01:25 AM
1

Really? I see them, the odd post about a man not being able to continue his University course despite the "victim" admitting they made it all up at a latter date and how they also received no punishment for destroying years of their life crack top 50 every so often.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:30 AM
2

You're right, sit here talking about how much of a prick this guy might be while kids get their dicks cut for cosmetic and traditional reasons.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:25 AM
1

I see someone either does their research or like me watched Adam ruins everything.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 12:24 AM
0

I think OP is just karma whoring, it shouldn't be phrased that way but a minority on this sub prefer it so they did it anyway.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 11:38 PM
6

Same, I have the mental strength to leave an abusive relationship but I wouldn't hit someone hitting me. It's just not in my character, not saying you shouldn’t defend yourself just that I wouldn't, as I say I wouldn't just put up with it though, even if it was parents or siblings let alone a gf/wife.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 02:10 PM
1

I'm as lefty as they come, and the last thing I want is this sub being alt-right-ified. However, the majority of reddit views this sub as a cesspool already, almost no one takes it seriously as anything more than a hate sub, keeping it alt-right free isn't gonna fix that.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 02:36 PM
1

They still do those shitty lie detector tests? Don't they realise if that shit worked there'd be much fewer problems in the world? Congrats they got it right this time, when they were already suspicious!
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/17 10:08 PM
2

Damn and I used to be all right with him, I can get on board with his religion bashing even if sometimes it's over the top, but this video is unacceptable.
/r/MensRights22/02/17 03:55 PM
55

Looking at the "hot" posts on ppd atm, could you tell me which are alt-right propaganda because they seem fine to me. This sub is garbage for sure, but I don't see what's wrong with the ppd posts (even if some commenters are trash)
/r/PussyPass22/02/17 12:09 PM
4

...Not having kids is selfish? Last I checked you still have to pay taxes that go towards schools, children's medical care and benefits to families who are too poor to feed themselves yet still go and have kids anyway. Whatever your stance on the morality of having kids being okay, OBVIOUSLY not having kids is more selfless.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/17 08:27 PM
1

That's trying to treat a symptom rather than the problem. Equality would be making sure every child up to adulthood has the same quality education and upbringing in general. While that's no easy task, waiting until they're 17/18 etc leaves too many through the cracks.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/02/17 06:13 AM
59

Actually the way equality should is that neither get scholarships into X dominated fields.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/02/17 07:16 PM
78

However it's simply misleading because they measured both statistics differently, one is just a flat income check for all women/men then the average (probably mean but maybe median) of both is taken - then they check themselves, properly, accounting for seniority, position, education, qualifications etc and wowie magically it's as it should be and not sexist. Maybe they should run the numbers as they got the first statistic so it's not misleading as fuck for the average person who isn't aware of…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 10:53 AM
1

Is the first one from a "sincere" ad, or just this one highlighting the absurdity? I know it's a real common opinion and problem, just didn't expect it to be paraded on a poster seriously.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 01:52 AM
3

Gaslighting people is surprisingly effective, if they spout it long enough some people think it's normal.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 04:00 AM
50

It says removed, deleted posts don't actually remove the page they just don't show up on searches and on the sub or frontpage or r/all, basically removing a post makes it say "removed" and means you can only get to it by a link.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/17 09:58 PM
15

Somehow this is much worse than if it didn't have parentheses. I guess because it strongly implies that violence can only be male and that male violence is a tautology, while without parentheses it at the very least could be interpreted as referring to a subset of violence.
/r/MensRights24/01/17 11:34 PM
6

You may have designed the shirt perhaps, fonts and colour choices. But the quote you did not make up yourself, for sure.
/r/MensRights15/01/17 09:03 PM
4

I do, but I also think it goes both ways. While feminism is inherently sexist in that the dictionary definition specifies that it is something along the lines of "striving for equality by improving the standard of women's lives" or similar, it doesn't have to be at the detriment of men, nor does it have to be about making women's lives better than men's or giving them better opportunities and so on. Just because it frequently does, is a flaw of the people who call themselves feminists while actu…
/r/MensRights08/01/17 01:31 PM
7

Perhaps it's because there's such a stigma/lack of belief when guys complain about domestic abuse that guys are less likely to report it and thus the numbers are lower. But you're right, it does surprise me too by the amount of difference.
/r/MensRights07/01/17 01:47 PM
1

Come on, is this shit real? It cannot be that bad, the first one was bad enough, like really bad, but some are fucking worse! And I still have no idea what the fuck they mean by mansplainning...is it just whenever a man explains something?
/r/MensRights02/01/17 07:41 PM
1

Come on man, if you're going to troll at least be decent at it :/
/r/MensRights01/01/17 12:50 PM
2

Both are problems mate, the fine one is just a much bigger problem.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 12:48 PM
47

You and I both know that's not what the "both" referred to. However your opinion is unpopular, very few people want that to be the law due to body autonomy stuff. However what is your opinion on the actual both I was referring to, that if men are responsible because they had sex and knew pregnancy was a possibility that women should be too.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 11:35 AM
105

By that logic the woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion either if the sex was consensual. So which is it buddy? Both or neither?
/r/MensRights01/01/17 10:46 AM
2

Same shit as lying for Jesus stuff.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 01:15 PM
1

I'm practically asexual lol, relationships just seem like so much effort (regardless of sex) and I never get lonely so not much incentive.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 08:10 AM
3

Yep that's p much what I expected. Really good vid to show anyone who says sexism against men doesn't exist. Some of them will of course just say "that never happens irl to men", the you can just lay down one of the 1000s of cases where it did.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 08:05 AM
5

Many women have to deal with things like applying and removing makeup every day, purses, outfits, long hair (such a pain to maintain), perfume, high heels (back problems, ugh, but they’re just so cute), the list just goes on for an eternity. YOU MEAN CHOOSE TO?
/r/MensRights19/12/16 07:59 AM
1

True, guess we need a word for people who use the term feminazi correctly and incorrectly. Lets call the former "all right" and the second "an asshole" :P
/r/MensRights19/12/16 01:25 AM
1

Yep, that's why I like to call the above a feminazi, and leave the term feminist for those who want real equality.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 12:46 AM
2

Well you shouldn't have been banned but someone should have explained that kids shouldn't have to bear the burden of their stupid parents.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 12:40 AM
11

If it was religious practice for X religion to cut off an arm (yes obviously much worse than circumcision!) and we allowed that it wouldn't be okay either. Having religious freedoms is about allowing people to do things within the law for their religion without discrimination. An example of that being broken would be the anti-hijab thing France had going on at the beaches for a while, where other head covering was fine but purely Muslims were targeted.
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:33 PM
1

I know you can't share the statement, for obvious reasons, but no statement no matter how heartfelt detailed or consistent can be sure to be true I.e. Not a lie without ACTUAL evidence? Did they cry and you count that as true? What om earth could they say that proves they weren't making it up? We're talking about potentially ruining a person's life purely off something someone claimed is true with nothing to back it up? That's so fucked up that I hope you are mistaken and there was real proof or…
/r/MensRights18/12/16 04:42 AM
3

Well the fact that a teacher was found guilty from something that may have happened 20 years prior purely from a statement from the alleged victim scares me much more. None of the things you listed should be evidence either...is that really what people consider beyond a reasonable doubt nowadays?
/r/MensRights17/12/16 09:22 PM
2

Okay? So when they come to claim child support and says no because he says he was raped he has nothing to back it up? How would you press charges with no evidence anyway? You can straight up come in to say you want to report a rape but that you have no evidence to back it up.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 04:42 PM
6

I suggest going to the police, you don't need evidence to have them log you made a statement. That way if the time ever comes when she turns up you have some evidence against paying child support.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:59 PM
3

I don't see a problem with the ruling as long as he'd make the same ruling if it was the other way round. Though I don't agree with telling the jury what they must do.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 02:55 PM
1

Yes I already knew this was frequently presented far beyond 50/50 (not that 50/50 is the right amount or close to the right amount). However obviously on tumblr you will find people claiming the man is always at fault and plenty of people will believe it but never share it. However I found that there's still a plenty decent amount of depictions of female cheating where she is as fault. I don't like to overplay man hating to be more frequent or worse than it is, that's just becoming what we hate.
/r/MensRights17/12/16 05:59 AM
2

Indeed, an good comparison Imo would be a medical analogy. A doctor checks your blood pressure and sees it is too high, he could just let your blood until it is the correct amount but that'd only be a superficial temporary fix and not only would it not fix the real cause and would be dangerous over the long term.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 04:41 PM
3

I have a problem with this, if genders swapped it'd be one of the things we complain about (rightfully so) which is other roles like computer scientists and doctors that push really hard for female applicants. Both are wrong Imo, different sexes on average have different desires and neither should be given an unfair advantage over the other in another field that means they either get more pay for less work or they get chosen over a more qualified applicant.
/r/MensRights16/12/16 03:57 PM
18

What does that even mean? That 50% of the population aren't in the field? Have you ever considered the average woman and average man have different interests? Edit: I meant to say 50% of the comp Sci are female, not 50% of pop are comp sci
/r/MensRights10/12/16 05:31 PM
14

Yup, at University of Leicester I take comp sci, every couple of days we get emails about women's opportunities and #HeForShe
/r/MensRights10/12/16 04:48 PM
12

Megan Kelly and I do not agree on much, but from time to time she is passionate about the correct things. Hate the guilty until proven innocent method on anything let alone something as fucking impossible to prove as not-rape. You literally have to have to have proof you two weren't near each other at the alleged time, or have footage of the alleged time, like how the fuck could you have either of those, any false accuser worth their salt could make sure you spend 20 mins alone off camera togeth…
/r/MensRights05/12/16 04:44 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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