TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

JudgeWhoAllowsStuff Archive

View 0 posts and 359 comments by JudgeWhoAllowsStuff on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-3

I didn't do any violence today, so I actually have the perfect attitude.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 05:01 PM
–

Violence will never "end".
/r/MensRights10/02/15 04:04 PM
0

There are plenty of agents out there for her to hire.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 10:03 PM
1

So, not coercion. Very good.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 10:02 PM
0

This is more like if you are the boss and your employee gives you advice. You are not being coerced by your employee to follow their advice.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 04:38 PM
1

She is the employer of the agent. She can fire them and hire another agent.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 04:29 PM
-2

No. She doesn't have to do what her agent says.
/r/MensRights04/01/15 03:15 PM
1

Do it.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 02:41 PM
0

Sure are. I'm just used to the front page of this sub dealing with complaints where men are actually being wronged, rather than just being annoyed.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 02:40 PM
2

Has anyone tried writing to them?
/r/MensRights21/11/14 12:18 PM
-3

Why? It's their website and they chose not to.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 03:57 AM
1

Can I invite only women into my house? What fundamentally changes when I start selling things?
/r/MensRights20/11/14 10:26 PM
1

Does it?
/r/MensRights20/11/14 10:23 PM
-7

That's stupid. Let the market decide.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:10 PM
0

she has a right to object or allow it Why? He wasn't changing the diaper in her stall. Does she have a right to object or allow the presence of a bathroom attendant, too? Because that should fall under the same scope of the "rights" you're describing.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 11:58 AM
3

their point is that the 'harassment' isn't coming from other men, though. If it had, the feminists would be ranting on about how the common denominator is that men are to blame.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:38 PM
1

It's always used to dodge criticism. It can never be used to actually defend an argument.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 04:35 PM
6

Nope, the ones doing the policing would just be labeled "anti-feminist", as they always are. You underestimate how fucked the situation is.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 01:14 PM
1

So what is the point of mentioning that here? This could have been a prop gun.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 02:12 AM
10

Yeah I think feminists are dumb for getting so butthurt over things like this. So the response is to be just as butthurt? That's retarded.
/r/MensRights08/10/14 01:08 AM
9

It's already a year old article.
/r/MensRights21/09/14 11:06 PM
1

The answer is certainly in between, and not either of the extremes.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 12:48 AM
1

So my choices are: "The fedz" never kill anyone "The fedz" kill everyone, all the time. Got it. I'm gonna go take a long walk and think about my worldview.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 12:25 AM
0

He said "Why do you think you'd be immune?" And you said "Because [dumb bullshit]." So you were saying you were immune. Being immune from something is not the same as that thing just being unlikely or "not having to worry about it". I'm not a psychopath so it I highly unlikely I'd ever be put in a position of being a suspect of any serious crime. Yep, the falsely convicted are always psychopaths. Spot on! Retard.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 05:43 PM
1

Being wrongfully sentenced to death?
/r/MensRights15/09/14 05:31 PM
0

Q: "Why do you think you'd be immune? [From being wrongfully sentenced to death]" A: "eh... because I'm not a fucking psychopath???" So you're immune from being sentenced to death because you're not a psychopath who would kill their kid or do anything similar (correct me if I'm wrong). The implication being that the justice system never wrongfully sentences anyone to the death penalty. Which is a very dumb thing that you implied. Retards say dumb things. Ergo, I called you a retard. Retard.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 05:29 PM
0

Someone who is aware that the justice system at least occasionally convicts the innocent.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 05:19 PM
0

I don't think that the government is going to randomly kill people it disagrees with Hahahahahahahaha.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:59 AM
-1

And the justice system has a 100% track record. Retard.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 11:59 AM
2

How's that PHIL 101 class going? Book reports are due next week.
/r/MensRights02/09/14 11:48 PM
3

Perfectly stated. Though I do agree with him that the incentive structure needs to be changed.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 03:29 PM
2

This is funny. You're saying that women's tendency to wrongly justify (or have justified for them) their own actions based on the actions of others, is itself justified based partly on the actions of others (movie makers, in this particular example). That's very amusing to me. Do you think there is ever a point where it gets recursive? Like maybe movie makers are justified in depicting women as weak because movie makers depict women as wreak because movie makers depict women as weak, etc?
/r/MensRights22/08/14 03:17 PM
4

Cultural Marxists and regular Marxists like to ignore the fact that the evil Kapitalists take on risk and are highly skilled. It's not all ivory backscratchers and diving into pools of gold coins.
/r/MensRights09/08/14 07:11 AM
2

They're nuts about the knife thing. They have bins for people to turn in their knives. It's crazy.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:48 PM
2

Just don't vote to make it like MA. People tend to move there and then screw up the whole "Live Free or Die" thing that people love about it.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:34 PM
2

NH recently repealed all of its knife laws. Nice place.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:11 PM
2

So the blade on my multitool or Swiss army knife would be OK. Sure about that? I don't think they would be.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 04:11 PM
0

Did you read the part where they didn't say anyone was arrested for STABBING SOMEONE?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:18 PM
-1

It's legal to stab someone who's on probation?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 02:17 PM
3

A feminist in other words, incapable of seeing anything outside the box. Misogyny!
/r/MensRights25/07/14 02:10 PM
-1

But, like any good person, he didn't press charges. Right?
/r/MensRights24/07/14 06:29 PM
11

Um, vat?
/r/MensRights24/07/14 06:07 PM
-1

I'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that it would be kind to let this psycho go unpunished.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:48 PM
0

So it's unkind to press charges against a violent attacker?
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:35 PM
1

You're describing two different aspects as one: You're not allowed to continue after the threat is over. You're allowed a certain amount of force depending on the situation. In this case, it's unlikely a court would decide he was in danger of dying or being seriously harmed, so he would likely be justified to end the situation with force not including deadly force. However, if we switch their roles, she would likely be clear to use deadly force (again, only while the threat persists).
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:31 PM
1

In self-defence you can only harm the attacker as much as is needed for the attacker to stop. Not exactly. He would have been justified to deck her instead of leg sweeping her, even though that would have been more extreme.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:03 PM
1

It's just that he seems like a big, good natured, bear who wouldn't punish anyone even if he ought too. Why is that "good"?
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:00 PM
1

I thought most child abusers were recorded as female.
/r/MensRights09/07/14 12:30 PM
-1

You're saying True Feminists^<sup>TM</sup> don't think that punishing for false rape accusations should be discouraged?
/r/MensRights27/06/14 02:34 PM
2

You're a fucking moron. Missing the point on like six different levels.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 02:02 PM
5

You get it.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 03:19 AM
1

What's the problem with capitalism now?
/r/MensRights03/06/14 04:57 PM
-2

What you're doing is like when men complain about sexist jokes against men. The real middle ground is for both sides to recognize it's a fucking joke, just like sexist jokes against women. Not for men to start acting like pissy feminists.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 08:55 PM
0

I'm pro-divider and anti-"using violence to uphold bathroom segregation".
/r/MensRights22/05/14 06:16 PM
-5

it's not really in favour of equality between the sexes to tolerate women breaking the rules which men are bound to, apparently by threat of physical violence. I don't think men ought to be bound to them either.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 06:15 PM
-24

Huh? Nobody should care about that. The shitters have privacy doors and the pissers should have barriers. Nobody should give a shit what's between the legs of the person pissing or shitting next door, even though ostensibly they are segregated. Your opinion is wrong and stupid.
/r/MensRights22/05/14 04:55 PM
16

But we (rightly) don't care..
/r/MensRights22/05/14 04:42 PM
10

People shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a war they don't want either.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:58 AM
5

Probably wouldn't live long in prison either.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:40 AM
4

138 is hiding in your shower drain right now. Or possibly inside your shoes.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:15 PM
0

That's stupid.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 01:57 PM
10

Is it a private university? If so, it stands to reason that they can legally put on whatever theatrics they want before suspending/expelling you for no reason.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 12:53 PM
11

They didn't literally slap her wrist.
/r/MensRights17/04/14 05:37 PM
1

Is this a crosspost from /r/talesofoppression?
/r/MensRights09/04/14 06:13 PM
3

So anyone who is slightly above the minimum to not get fired is over qualified? Your definition is bullshit.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 06:02 PM
3

You can't be bumped up to a job you aren't qualified for - you wouldn't be able to do the job. You might get bumped up, but you'd quickly get fired. Hahahahahaha
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:52 PM
6

I don't see how you changing my text would accomplish that. I'll break down my point for the PC hand-wringers: Many companies have affirmative action in place for women. This means that, in aggregate, women are less qualified for their respective jobs than they would ordinarily be (affirmative action doesn't create extra job skill out of thin air, it just puts them in higher positions). Being less qualified for their positions in aggregate puts women in a worse bargaining position.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:13 PM
5

Affirmative action is an artificial rise in tide; it raises all applicable ships. Adequately qualified beneficiaries of affirmative action would tend to be bumped up to jobs they aren't qualified for.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 03:19 PM
13

That or affirmative action overvalues women in any given company where it's in place, so they are in an inherently worse bargaining position.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 01:26 PM
2

He clarified that he was being flippant in the way he stated that boys need to be told not to rape, but the clarified version of what he's saying is still that same message, that only males rape. He totally blew off that point.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 11:30 PM
1

That's not why. "With displaced anger" sounds too subjective. It doesn't have the impact that the second one has.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 11:25 PM
1

I'd drop the first one.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 10:01 PM
1

But yet the "only males rape" aspect slips right past you.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 09:59 PM
1

It seems that OP's friend at least feels this is how things should be.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 05:24 PM
2

I got the impression that the anthropology teacher was just pointing out the double standard.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 01:49 PM
14

Their hypersensitive to perceived misogyny but there's no mention of misandry. They specifically say that it's supposed to be a space for minorities and women. Stuff like that. And just the general cringey level of SJW-ness of it all.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 02:26 PM
0

The Progressive movement is about whatever causes the most dependency on the government. Single parents depending on the state for welfare and to enforce child support payments is good for business. Getting people to use the state as their own personal goon squad to get what they want is good for business.
/r/MensRights29/01/14 03:21 AM
7

Probably in a city. We didn't have many rules either, at the school in the rural area I grew up.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 01:37 PM
2

Thanks for the much needed clarification.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 03:18 PM
2

I'm just saying it's pointless and gimmicky to compare across classes of ability.. it smacks of "Superman versus Batman" arguments from grade school. And then to bill a handicap adjusted contest as any kind of apples to apples "battle of the sexes" is just an asinine cherry on top of the bullshit sundae. Just give everyone a Participant medal and they can all be happy. Nobody wants to know who's really the best athlete, just who has the best excuse for being an inferior athlete, amirite? "You we…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 11:38 AM
12

So if I say "Hey you're pretty smart at science, for a woman..." I'm not actually insulting anyone, I'm just normalizing for gender so that I can accurately compare her to men?
/r/MensRights20/01/14 08:40 AM
9

It's not fair to normalize it and then call it a contest of the genders, or anything along those lines. Maybe they should normalize for disabilities and combine the Special Olympics and the Olympics. Wouldn't it be fun and meaningful to make that comparison? No, it would be asinine just like this 'contest'.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 08:11 AM
21

I didnt hear any outrage when [men] won. Because the handicap doesn't favor men... They won despite the unfair handicap, therefore no outrage was warranted.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 05:10 AM
2

What happened to not doubting that this double standard exists?
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:16 AM
1

And I would say the same in that scenario.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 10:47 AM
3

Eh, 18 is the cutoff. The story is horrifying enough without calling him a boy.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 05:07 PM
-2

Now I'm convinced this is a troll.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 02:11 PM
2

You didn't disagree with my point at all.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:11 AM
8

Right, feminists.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 12:11 AM
1

Apparently not.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 01:01 PM
2

If you do them as proficiently as you argue, I hope you have a helper.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 04:35 AM
3

You realize that you didn't even rebut his point about the judges, right? You just agreed with it.
/r/MensRights27/12/13 11:48 PM
5

Shh, that's not how the brainwashing is supposed to work.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 07:12 PM
-2

I'd rather discuss the validity of using feely buzzwords in general.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:20 PM
-8

I think it's a bit flattering to call them a hate group. I hold just about as low of an opinion of them as possible, but they really don't accomplish anything hateful. Or anything at all, period.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 06:08 PM
-5

I'm drowning in snark.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 05:56 PM
-11

It's so rare that people are actually referring to Nazis, that I still find my rule of thumb effective. Much more often it's someone trying to play at guilt-by-Nazi-association.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 05:56 PM
-19

I automatically tune out when someone says hate group. It's a term from the language of bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:57 PM
2

How did they decide on the convention that electrons would be labeled as negatively charged? That is also an arbitrary convention, as I understand. They could have swapped the subatomic particle charge labels and then the electrical current flow convention would match.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 12:42 AM
7

Subtlety: literally rape.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 04:30 PM
4

So unenthusiastic consent is what, not actually consent?
/r/MensRights08/12/13 06:42 AM
2

I think it takes a relatively long time to die from, so generally if you're a really old guy and you get it you'll die of something else. If you're in the early age range of when it usually happens, treatment is more important. I'm not a doctor. I was just explaining what people mean when they talk about diagnosing cancer early.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 01:53 AM
5

Not "early in your life", but rather "early in the process of dying of cancer".
/r/MensRights01/12/13 10:37 PM
3

A term invented by libral arts professors to sell useless degrees to impressionable undergrad students.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 02:23 PM
5

With her history you might be able to get custody.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:25 PM
8

You do have the chance to be around the other gender even if you go to a single gender school. School isn't 24/7.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 04:37 PM
5

It wouldn't happen in this case, but if they were dating it could be a different story. Equitable estoppel can be used to justify a continuation of support. More likely with provable financial support (covering bills/expenses).
/r/MensRights16/10/13 01:28 PM
1

I would say OP's bias wouldn't affect his edits on, say, a page about elephants.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:51 AM
0

Really, most of what you see? Try venturing beyond what makes the front page.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 05:43 PM
4

I had a manager who was a woman at one of my minimum wage jobs in retail. She would do a lot of this type of thing - less man bashing, but lots of complaining about her personal life and shitting all over me, the new guy. So I started to overdress for work (shirt and tie every day) and customers started assuming I was the manager, which infuriated her. It upset the balance just enough to make work tolerable. I like your method with the friend.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:08 PM
0

You might have agreed to be recorded in your employment contract. A lawyer would be able to tell you whether that satisfies the requirements of two-party consent.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:03 PM
3

Even if your assertion is 100% true, it's entirely possible that he's from Bumblefuck Alabama. If you tell me you were bitten by a [some fucking spider or whatever that only lives in Australia], I don't see how I could rationally respond by assuming that you were full of shit, instead of assuming you'd been to Australia. And shitty hospitals, shitty doctors, and malpractice are all fairly common as I understand it. At least common enough to believe that SOMEONE, somewhere on the internet, had ha…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:30 PM
4

How is that going to verify his claims? Shouldn't you be asking for a dick pic? And why do you doubt that a botched circumcision could have happened?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:51 PM
3

How can being between a rock and a hard place be that bad? Can't you just walk to the side?
/r/MensRights04/09/13 07:10 PM
5

The Patriarchy® would never allow it.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 04:21 AM
7

But it isn't.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 02:51 PM
2

But the next salary bracket up is greener.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 04:43 PM
6

Even when the mother and father live happily together the mother is still the primary carer. Source?
/r/MensRights19/06/13 05:31 PM
4

studentic Something tells me you haven't been to college.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 08:01 PM
1

Maybe if these uni students took their own safety seriously they would carry guns of their own.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 07:28 PM
4

By benefits I assumed you we referring to the tax incentive for marriage. Never mind. And am I really in /r/mensrights right now, having a patron of said forum explain to me that the US systems of custody, divorce, child support, and family law are all examples of things that have been done so right that they ought to continue existing as they currently stand?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:35 PM
5

Yeah I don't agree with giving benefits to people for choosing the correct lifestyle. Partner up (gays too!), have kids, get a house/car/debt, all that good shit, and we'll pay you for some of it with the tax dollars of those schmucks who don't want to do that stuff.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:16 PM
15

Marriage should not exist in the eyes of the government. You should be able to (and are in fact able to) say who your stuff goes to when you die, who gets to pull the plug if you're on life support, etc etc, without Marriage®. Edit: So basically I disagree with your premise that the government should grant any legal spousal rights at all.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:12 PM
17

Shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:41 PM
11

I got confused because you actually fixed it for him, rather than the normal use of that meme - to snarkily contradict the person.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 12:49 PM
16

I've got a great name for a pizza restaurant.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 11:59 PM
11

I'll allow it.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 07:13 PM
7

Oh are we holding them to standards now?
/r/MensRights19/04/13 03:43 AM
4

So you're saying Feminists caused the Holocaust..
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:29 PM
7

It bothers me still that size is considered so indicative of relative danger. I'm tall and strong, but I don't fight or train to fight. We should at least say it should go by strength, as the current system dictates that someone with 30lbs less fat and 30lbs more muscle than you, is on equal footing with you. Even still, someone of the same strength as me could take martial arts or boxing and kick my ass. So I'm not sure there is really a good litmus test for the objective component of a justifi…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 02:52 PM
5

More like job experience. Employers don't care that you were in the marching band.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:22 PM
9

They'd rather discredit practical skills/pursuits than feel like they are lazy or incompetent. They project their fear of being in control of a gun (precipice effect) as an assertion that nobody should be trusted with that power.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 08:36 PM
2

I'm not sure you can do things en masse by yourself. The term refers to the group doing the thing.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:49 PM
5

I doubt if any woman or man can pander harder than Obama, regardless of footwear.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 03:12 PM
6

It's not 'blaming women'.
/r/MensRights24/12/12 09:24 PM
13

Yeah male sexuality is sleazy.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 06:59 AM
2

Good idea. He should also destroy her phone.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:26 PM
4

Just have him get her blackout drunk until she passes out, then destroy her phone and drop her off at a far away emergency room.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:25 PM
5

Or what happens when she's smaller than the man. He can't defend himself. It's the legal equivalent of being held down so someone can beat you up.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:27 PM
2

Thanks for the warning.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 02:05 AM
0

Is the divorce already settled? I wonder if he'll just be ordered to pay more alimony and child support to make up for his scumbag ex wife.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:54 PM
-1

Maybe it's BS and he's trying to expose hypocrisy by baiting feminists to shit on him.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:32 PM
1

Do that and send her a pallet of twinkies while you still can.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 02:31 PM
1

My mistake.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 05:05 PM
1

beating someone up makes you a pretty shitty person and shouldn't be around children
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:55 PM
1

Isn't it pretty important to know who the aggressor was, if you're going to say people who start fights shouldn't be allowed to see their children? Even if you want to condemn him for engaging in mutual combat, let's not forget that they are both guilty of that. Shouldn't they both be barred from contact with the chid, by your standards?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:24 PM
0

The fact that he subscribes to such a narrative is a pretty good indicator that he'd keep shocking the puppy.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:06 PM
0

They probably used recorded dog noises.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:04 PM
1

That's rough.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 06:41 PM
5

Exactly my reasoning.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 04:15 PM
14

Apple != orange.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:58 PM
77

So she insists the decision to get a vasectomy must be unanimous, but doesn't apply that same logic to the decision to have more children? What I'm saying is you need to watch out in case she tries to make a unilateral decision on that front as well. If she thought your position on the procreation was a significant hurdle, she would recognize the vasectomy as a non-issue. Use brand new condoms from the store ONLY, and do not rely on her taking the pill. Wait until your wife is gone for a few day…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:14 PM
3

A Real Man™ wouldn't ask that question.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 02:08 PM
2

Yeah it says they are sober enough to assess their own safety properly, but are too drunk to give consent. Which says that the question "Am I getting into a bad situation right now?" is a significantly easier question to answer than "Do I feel like fucking right now?"
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:42 PM
1

Or on a hot summer afternoon.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 03:09 PM
3

You brought up the misandrist tone with your initial comment.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:35 PM
3

It's not rarer.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:58 AM
5

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12wpbq/man_pulls_to_side_of_road_and_opens_and_closes/ It's on the front page.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:18 PM
10

They work around this by taxing single taxpayers more than married taxpayers.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:58 PM
3

Double post. Missed it by a few hours.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:45 PM
2

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to play to people's bias against unfounded claims. I would say it's just too general to be truly profound.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:43 PM
8

Holy shit man, that's rough.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:42 PM
2

Lol yes
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:40 PM
7

Your mom's boyfriend pressed charges against you?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:40 PM
3

I'm gonna go ahead and say that's equally bad. It's an explanation but not a proper excuse.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:58 PM
3

Explanation != excuse.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:39 AM
4

Lol.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 11:59 PM
2

Someone already asked that.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 07:01 PM
31

But she's the one who chose to throw you under the bus in order for her and her husband to save face.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 06:38 PM
36

White trash and stupid love to call the cops.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:47 PM
89

She's either upset because she fucked up, or upset because her husband fucked up. Either way, she's lashing out at OP to deflect from her/their parenting abilities. My guess was that she fucked up, but you're right it could have been either. My original explanation still holds though.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:26 PM
6

Yeah his phrasing makes me wonder if this happened to someone he knows, or if he's just generalizing.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 04:03 PM
13

Don't respond.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:54 PM
1

I don't think that's an effective way to stop the pendulum in the middle.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 02:42 PM
6

They would have to pay you to take the cookies.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:37 PM
2

So you're saying she's available?
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:29 PM
13

Maybe they rode their unicorn in and couldn't find parking.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:50 PM
12

I can't believe they let a MAN clean up female shit. He probably liked it, the perv.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:49 PM
23

Because we want to stop the pendulum in the middle.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 09:48 PM
1

Maybe facebook provides those? I am unsure of how it works. I would think even something like a screenshot would be susceptible to photoshopping.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:28 AM
1

I would have thought you'd have to have the cell provider pull the data for this exact reason. There are issues when you're the one procuring your own evidence.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:27 AM
2

Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer and don't know much about apps. I would think you'd want to find an app that is known to be tamper-resistant. That is to say, you couldn't easily falsify or modify a text message. Otherwise its credibility could be questioned.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 02:17 AM
13

Might want to consult a lwyer to verify that texts saved via any given method will be considered evidence-worthy.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:11 PM
34

Maybe.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:04 AM
0

What the fuck is a safe wardrobe?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:44 PM
18

"Aren't you Whoopi Goldberg!?"
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:56 AM
6

Bwaah!
/r/MensRights24/10/12 06:13 PM
1

Is that a thing about INTP folks?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 03:05 PM
1

Pray
/r/MensRights19/10/12 02:32 PM
15

I'm not talking about rights.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:55 PM
29

The proper thing to do in that case would be to leave, not kick the guy out.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:31 PM
1

Yeah, I'm not contradicting you bro.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:37 AM
1

I agree with you that you don't have to watch porn to be informed about it and have a valid opinion. I was merely pointing out that using rape as an example is poor form, because it is far less controversial (as far as its status as moral/immoral). It is not something that's in disputed moral territory, so you can't use it as "proof" that someone's opinions on pornography are valid. Instead look to the criteria which make up a truly justified opinion. It has nothing to do with whether you've tri…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:43 AM
2

Imposing your morals on a scenario works when it's not an edge case. Example: rape is held as immoral almost ubiquitously, but porn is more of an edge case. So you aren't as likely to be correct in passing off your subjective views of morality as objective in the case of porn as you are in the case of rape.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:40 PM
1

Excellent point. Nobody would have been hurt. However, in most states you need the same justification to draw as you do to shoot.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 02:04 PM
1

you are the illtirate her buddy. Says it all, right there.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 10:59 AM
2

I'm not sure what you're attempting to convey here.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:39 AM
1

Actually NZ has some pretty cool gun laws, better in some ways IMO than US laws. It's super easy to get a silencer where you are.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 11:48 PM
-1

If you were halfway literate you would realize I'm referring to Canada. And while you're on about "FEAR CULTURE" (starting to sound a feminist, boy) how about a country so rabid with fear that it can't trust its own citizens with small arms? Or are you all just so inept that if you had a gun you'd instantly kill yourself with it?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:44 PM
2

Another point is that it's the overall murder rate you want to look at. That's the useful metric - do guns correlate with an increased or decreased level of overall murder.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:31 PM
4

The idea behind that law (and in fact, most every law) is that your average Joe will follow it - not simply there to inflict punishment if it's broken. Anyone who will commit a MURDER when severe legal action is on the line, is not a person who would obey the law anyway. Furthermore, it's not "letting people be armed". The government doesn't have power over that.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:21 PM
1

If your point is just "We can't trust Joe to know and follow the law" then I don't really see how that discussion is relevant to this post, or to /r/mensrights. It's a whole other discussion.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:51 PM
0

as far as the Aurora shooting Aw man, you took the shit-bait
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:47 PM
5

Dude, so not what I was saying. But I'm content to stop the conversation.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:44 PM
4

Wow, that took a turn for the crazy. Talk shit about reading comprehension... can you not see I was somewhat conceding there? It's something society has to decide (ideals vs practicality). I'm not qualified to hammer out the details with you, because I have no expertise in mental health.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:37 PM
5

I'm not a psychologist or qualified to weigh in on that, really. But it's certainly an example of how society has to make decisions while respecting its ideals.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:22 PM
6

I consider bearing arms to be a right. Bearing means to carry.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:14 PM
8

So a billion law abiders could lose their gun rights, and in your mind it's worth it if it saves even one life by preventing an accident? And even if a thousand of those would-be concealed carriers died from being attacked while defenseless?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:08 PM
2

Right, so you're saying we can't trust Joe to have a gun because he's not capable of following the laws (even if we suppose Joe has never broken a law before). So this is more of a general political discussion, not one for /r/mensrights. And it's too bad you're missing out on your country's great gun culture. I'm guessing you're a city boy to arrive at the conclusions you have.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:48 PM
7

So whose fear is unjustified now? You're afraid of a minority fringe of a group that's already in the minority (concealed carriers who are irresponsible). And it would only come into play with a small fraction of the probability that you'd be involved in a crime, which is already highly unlikely. So basically you have better odds of winning the lottery while getting hit by lightning, than to have legal concealed carry affect you in a tangible negative way.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:42 PM
1

Then the point isn't specifically relevant to this case, since the problem is apparently a universal flaw in "joe" wherein he is incapable of knowing and following the law in all cases.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:35 PM
4

He's worried that the laws will systematically uphold the killing of the wrong person in this scenario. If you want to theorize about people who don't care about the law, that's a different conversation.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:08 PM
6

Panderific was implying the samaritans would shoot the guy. Not justifiable in NJ, unless she really convincingly made it look like the guy was killing her.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:02 PM
1

New Jersey.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:01 PM
55

You're spreading a misconception about gun carry. The gun is only for life threatening situations. This would not have been a justifiable situation to fire.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:32 PM
13

Just lick it up.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:28 AM
3

Failing to take precautions against something is not the same as being the perpetrator of that thing. In no way do those comments attempt to remove blame from the perpetrator.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 03:03 PM
1

Yeah, but the scout principle doesn't support going around telling other people what to do.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:36 PM
4

The kid can choose to use condoms when he grows up.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:00 PM
11

Or just don't worry about what others are doing. If you personally think it's polite to put the seat down after, go ahead. If the seat is not in the configuration you want it when you walk in there, change it yourself. Your plight in that regard is so minuscule, that it's fucking laughable that anyone would bother to wage a campaign to get others to do it for them.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 01:52 PM
3

Or no muslims allowed.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 07:39 PM
17

philosophy major I'll have a tall mocha latte.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 07:03 PM
2

anybody Sounds pretty absolute to me..
/r/MensRights25/09/12 01:32 PM
2

Wire tapping laws have been used in MA to press charges against people for video taping police.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 01:19 PM
2

Yeah all of these arguments about physical strength are pretty irrelevant, if you live somewhere you're allowed to arm yourself.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 04:20 PM
2

So trivializing men's opinions/issues/concerns (what about teh menz) is not considered oppressive. I can see how, using their definition of sexism, they could get away without calling it sexist. But I think they need to cook up a new definition for "oppressive" in order to reconcile the conflicting sidebar rules.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 04:10 PM
3

Are you in the US? Consider getting a concealed carry permit. If you are terrified of people who can overpower you, why aren't you concerned about that outside of your bakery?
/r/MensRights17/09/12 01:19 PM
142

Easy: Women cheat because the new guy is their true love, men cheat because they are scumbags.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:52 PM
0

Yes you keep taking the same thing and trying to repackage it to sound more like blame is being assigned.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:16 PM
0

You've lost me. I'm not entirely sure I know what you're referring to, and I've never personally heard an actual person say something that could be described that way. Let alone having enough people do that so as to justify demonizing the entire male population to attempt to get through to them.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 07:10 PM
0

Yeah, that's not the same as blaming them for the incident. We have incredibly harsh penalties for rapists, and we devote lots of taxpayer money to finding them. Nobody's forgetting who is at fault. Being advised to take precaution is not being assigned blame.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:52 PM
3

Oh yeah good point. Then I'll revise my statement and just say that the entire Slut Walk is fighting a straw man. They are taking the totality of things that people advise victims to do ("victim blaming") and putting it under the umbrella of the weakest point.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:48 PM
-1

You will see worse, people trying to assign blame to the school for policy issues, when the shooter is really to blame. You picked a bad example. At least in the case of rape, nobody is trying to assign actual blame to the victim.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:40 PM
3

Yeah there's no study linking dress to rape likelihood. However, you're ducking the issue. There ARE things a person can do to decrease the likelihood of their own rape, and telling them to do those things does not necessarily imply agency on their part in causing the rape. Advice on prevention != assignment of blame. Boiling it down to the dress thing is a straw man, when there are other valid pieces of advice (carry a gun, use common sense, travel in groups at night, take a taxi, don't get bla…
/r/MensRights12/09/12 06:30 PM
12

Always wear tube socks with sandals Mandatory cargo shorts Mandatory talking about fall foliage
/r/MensRights12/09/12 02:01 PM
1

Trying too hard, probably.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 09:34 PM
16

Sincerely, everyone who ever didn't ace a test.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 02:48 PM
5

Meh. That's what tip is for - it's feedback. Big deal if that means she loses $3 every once in a while. At least it will make her reconsider her approach.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 01:11 PM
5

No, his way is also correct. He doesn't like the service when his waitress overtly flirts.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:52 PM
3

Yeah, he's choosing not to reinforce that.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:32 PM
1

Even true compliance (giving your actual wallet) is not a reliable way to avoid force. If someone is willing to victimize you using deadly force, you cannot afford to gamble your life on the assumption that they'll have mercy on you for complying. And that's not even taking into account the fake wallet thing..
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:24 PM
1

Sounds like a bad plan.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:01 PM
3

The first billboard does support the disposability of men, though. Your own death must be described in terms of its impact on women/children.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 01:09 PM
1

I haven't seen it, I'll have to check it out.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 12:42 PM
1

Yeah, I'm pointing out two different points being conflated by the person OP is arguing against: privilege of men in general, and privilege of homeless men. Even if men in general were privileged, being homeless is a pretty good indicator that you didn't benefit from that (i.e. that you aren't privileged). Therefore being homeless can be taken as prima facie evidence that you need help, regardless of your gender.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:45 AM
9

Even if we suspend disbelief on that point, can't we say that ALL homeless people haver probably NOT benefitted from privilege? A preponderance of homeless men shows that men in general see less privilege, but I would contend that the homeless of both genders are equally unprivileged.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 05:15 PM
13

Did you know homeless women only get 60% of the amount of refrigerator boxes that priveliged white homeless men get? WHEN WILL THE PATRIARCHY END.
/r/MensRights04/09/12 05:12 PM
5

I've got front row tickets to sperm on ice.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 04:58 AM
6

Those are supposed to mean the same thing in the US court system. Innocent until proven guilty, or something like that.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:55 AM
3

So she asked you for rough sex and now she's seeing her doctor? Do you see hoe this might play out, especially considering the whole "I will lie to fuck you over" thing?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 06:45 PM
1

Yep, stopped reading at the Trayvon crack.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:17 PM
1

I'm just saying the law is bad regardless.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 04:51 PM
3

Not sure what the "swedish side of things" means. This is about the US. And I'm refuting your point that retroactive removal of consent is a myth. A woman doesn't have to go "No I never gave consent," now she can just go "Yeah I wasn't really capable of giving consent - j just started new allergy meds and I was a little out of it. Umad consenting partner?"
/r/MensRights23/08/12 02:20 PM
3

Other crimes require evidence to support the prosecution. When you only need someone's word for a conviction, it's more likely that it will be exploited/abused. Especially when there are overly vague definitions.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 01:23 PM
5

So what exactly are you saying? Women's fears about bathroom sanctity are valid because men use their genitals in there - why? Like there's going to be semen everywhere? If there's no concrete reason behind the fear, then I contend my label of "ignorance" is apt.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:57 PM
4

When you put something under the microscope and try to honestly say "What's the most efficient way to do this?" you don't bring human ignorance to the table as something to design around. What's the best way to get to Nantucket? Well I'm afraid of water, so I guess we'll freeze a path across so we can walk there. Boom, done - freezing the ocean is the best way to get to Nantucket. ETA: You're also begging the question by making the statement: And a bathroom is normally linked to sex in our brain…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:16 PM
5

I don't see how a man having shat in your single occupant bathroom somehow detracts from the experience for the women versus having a women's only single-occupant room (or vise versa).
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:19 PM
10

But then isn't it unnecessary to bother making one a [gender]'s only room? You maximize toilet uptime by leaving both ungendered.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 05:34 PM
2

Could be wrong, but aren't they getting the downsides of marriage via common law, without getting the tax breaks that come with marriage?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 05:31 PM
2

Burr points out how fucked up divorce law is, while the other guy laughs hysterically to distance himself from the situation.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:25 PM
2

I think Louis has the whole sad-sack thing going, which sort of makes his material seem like a parody of "modern suburban white guys". But he's much funnier than Burr. His material is just better, and he is more talented.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:22 PM
3

Jail.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 12:54 PM
3

If you are in the US you should look into arming yourself. Nobody should be made helpless by sociopaths.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 12:36 PM
0

This is used by gun control advocates to fear monger as well. All law-abiding gun owners are Schrödinger's Criminals. It's successful in convincing good people that they don't deserve trust.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:15 PM
0

He sounds like a little bitch.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:28 PM
1

Isn't that the city of brotherly love?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 02:25 PM
1

True, I forgot that you're subject to the opinion of the local PD.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 12:31 AM
7

Dollars to donuts he just opened the door right up. At least make them work for it.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 06:05 PM
11

Only if someone stupidly opened the door and allowed it to happen. 1) Don't talk to the police. 2) Don't talk to the police. 3) Don't open the door for the police without a warrant.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:41 PM
-5

Maybe they have vibrating seats.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 06:32 PM
9

That's just because those jobs are boys' clubs. /s
/r/MensRights26/07/12 06:30 PM
4

Funny, I suspect the term "a-list date" has some implication of being attractive. "Not only do I have to pay for myself, but I also have to be attractive to land an attractive guy! TOO MUCH EFFORT."
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:11 PM
2

You should check out /r/wicked_edge. Nicest, most polite sub I've seen.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 12:55 PM
5

Kind of depressing.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 12:52 PM
2

... I'll allow it.
/r/MensRights20/07/12 12:36 PM
10

Reads like a troll though. Does anyone believe she's making those comments earnestly?
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:08 PM
2

She probably bought the ticket intending to heckle about rape.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:27 PM
3

They keep saying rape jokes "aren't funny"... I don't understand that argument. Isn't Tosh in a better position to know what's funny, being that he's a professional comedian?
/r/MensRights12/07/12 01:26 PM
3

I don't think cops question and search men because the majority of drug kingpins are male. I think the kinds of crime that we're really discussing - possession of personal use amounts of drugs, habitual driving offenses, driving on an expired or revoked license - are the kinds of crime that are actually perpetrated equally by men and women.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 03:08 AM
3

Yoo have to admit there is a strong selection bias here. Men are stopped and searches more because men are convicted of crimes more. Sounds like a big positive feedback loop to me.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 02:38 AM
8

If they stopped more women, that wouldn't be the case. Feel me?
/r/MensRights11/07/12 06:51 PM
13

It shouldn't be built into law that way. If one group happens to do better, that's a different thing entirely.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 03:22 PM
4

Fertile rapists are beating the system.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 07:43 PM
0

Citation needed. Also there is a social norm that says women need to be given rides when they are drunk. So while women may not be behind the wheel during DUI incidents, it is at least partially because they receive special treatment. They are still part of the problem. I.e. they ought to be educated about DUI as well, since it's a problem that they equally contribute to.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 12:10 PM
1

Why is the mom letting her fifteen year old kid go tanning?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 06:42 AM
13

... I allowed it.
/r/MensRights01/07/12 08:27 PM
16

Hired by...
/r/MensRights01/07/12 07:01 PM
2

I think it's partially a symptom of people who don't understand what the government is there for. Unfortunately those folks can vote, so you end up with this bizarre nannying legal system. Not to mention the suppression of sexuality and the glorification of war, power, and violence.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 05:47 PM
1

It doesn't "have to be". It's a term that describes things which appeal to traditional male gender roles. Part of MRA seems to be fighting for the right to exhibit masculine qualities without being shamed.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 04:02 PM
8

Cool
/r/MensRights27/06/12 01:20 AM
7

So is it more like "men's interest", like a place to appreciate and discuss manly stuff?
/r/MensRights27/06/12 01:13 AM
5

Wouldn't that make him kind of a doormat if he just happens to be comfortable with a lot of things? Maybe he's comfortable with her reading erotica, but he's not comfortable with his "leash" being shorter than hers.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 03:08 AM
1

True enough. Cool spam though.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:59 AM
2

I love Luce women.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:53 AM
1

Oh I thought you were bothered by the bot - I'm trying to make sense of why all of its posts get downvoted. I think the bot itself is cool.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:49 AM
3

There's no such thing as free lunch, or free condoms.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:45 AM
1

Yeah but didn't you kind of explain that yourself there with the quotes? They're not the "true" libertarians he was referring to.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:43 AM
1

Why does it bother you?
/r/MensRights26/06/12 02:41 AM
34

No I think terrorism is still the new communism.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 07:26 PM
9

Because the MRM is constantly providing evidence for the concepts of privelige imbalance it is based on, unlike feminism.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:04 PM
2

Umad?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:59 PM
1

Yeah it took me a long time to realize I was always walking on eggshells around my sisters. Now I'm moved out. Everything works a lot better now that I'm only around a couple days at a time. 3 brothers and 3 sisters.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:49 PM
4

I'll allow it.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:37 PM
0

Run away from the discussion and isolate... how ironic.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:36 PM
1

True. I think you can extend that logic to a lot of other ways people try to craft an identity for themselves by associating with extremely average things. Music fandom, sports fandom, state pride, school pride, political affiliation, etc. I think it's the only way many people can cope with how bland they are. I'd like to have one conversation with someone that didn't start with "Well, as a Liberal..." Or "OMG I'm such an engineer for saying that".
/r/MensRights17/06/12 06:31 AM
1

That's not what "it's a jeep thing" is used for. It's basically saying that offroading is a jeep thing. Also used to reference good/bad attributes to jeep vehicles (common repairs, etc).
/r/MensRights17/06/12 01:58 AM
2

I don't get how that would work... We don't even have mandatory hospital birth.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 07:01 PM
9

I thought bodily autonomy was supposed to be important.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 12:44 PM
1

With a school name like that, it's a wonder this is their first sex scandal.
/r/MensRights14/06/12 07:15 PM
0

It's a bit delusional to think anything exciting like that would happen in your lifetime. And by exiting, I mean a collapse big enough to make the world into a place where the characteristics you've assigned to yourself are valued (re: willingness and capability to kill). Have you seen Taxi Driver?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 07:55 PM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 07:34 PM
3

I think it's still worth posting. The fact that it's hanging up on the wall and nobody has taken it down, says something about what society thinks is ok. Hardly news to MRAs, but then neither is half of everything else posted here.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 07:05 PM
0

Neither OP nor myself made any claim that the NHS is biased against men. OP points out a sexist poster. You chime in saying it's ok because they've had non-sexist posters before. Nowhere did I or OP assert that this is an indication that NHS is anti-male.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 06:57 PM
-1

This is not my OP. If you want to contribute data be prepared to show some (really, any) evidence. If you look at the comment scores above where I call you out, you will see others agree.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 06:01 PM
-1

Secondhand story about one leaflet that was okay... Can't argue with that.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:53 PM
0

Then gtfo.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 05:46 PM
-1

Pics or gtfo.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 04:52 PM
2

It could certainly be used by the defense to taint her character in the preexisting legal battle. It's not proof of any crime, but it would help the jury believe she might do something like that.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:37 PM
8

It will work better if she has no idea the evidence exists. She can't build her defense around it.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 02:21 PM
9

Or compromise its potential to be used in court.
/r/MensRights12/06/12 12:52 PM
11

Go on...
/r/MensRights12/06/12 12:48 PM
5

Conspiracy to commit fraud?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 12:45 PM
5

Yeah I think that happens when you have kids and are technically a father, but your kids are too young to do anything nice for you.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 07:50 PM
12

I'm trying to do my part by not giving a shit about sports.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 02:55 PM
9

Glass ceiling!
/r/MensRights11/06/12 02:46 PM
16

It should be determined solely on a commission basis, a percentage of viewership and merchandising revenue.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 02:04 PM
19

eel.jpg
/r/MensRights08/06/12 07:33 PM
2

Guns are awesome.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:59 PM
2

Do you know if the appointed attorneys in the U.S. are generally good, shitty, or is it a crap shoot? Should everyone have a lawyer on retainer (or at least have their card) just in case?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:08 PM
2

So what exactly is the effect of SYG laws in the U.S. then, if all this is in place? Does it override and relieve the defendant from having to build a defense? Another issue that this brings up is that it's expensive to defend oneself in court. You could roll the dice and hope you get appointed a good freebie lawyer, but that doesn't quite put you on an even keel. Someone could be financially ruined if they get attacked by a criminal. I think that is part of the reasoning - in order to put the d…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:51 PM
2

Let me pick your brain then. Do these all apply at the federal level? Given what I said about the nature of being a victim of assault and battery, do you think that it's fair to place that level of burden on the victim of the initial assault and battery? I'm just trying to work out how a jury would deliberate on this. Normally they must decide guilt of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. So in this case, they decide 1) should he have feared the attacker, without reasonable doubt? 2) was the atta…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:25 PM
2

The term excessive force comes from police brutality cases, because police have different amounts of force they're allowed to use on people (restrain, less lethal, lethal, etc.) If someone is engaging in assault and battery on you, you're either permitted to use deadly force or you aren't. I would like to hear of a specific state that permits victims to punch an attacker, but not use deadly force. Another point of interest is that an attack happens a lot faster than you may think (I'm digressing…
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:03 PM
5

You lost me.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:39 PM
6

They released photos indicating he was attacked. His head slowed indications of being hit against the ground (consistent with his story). That kind of attack where you're being hit on the ground, is adequate grounds to fear for your life. It isn't by any means a case of clear innocence or guilt, but he will not get a guilty verdict. That is what I meant. If he does, I'll personally surrender bragging rights to you on this subject.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:35 PM
22

The media whips up frenzy about these cases, then moves on to the next big thing before the truth comes out. Case in point, the zimmerman story has taken a big turn toward showing his innocence of the charges, but you won't hear about it. One news agency actually edited the 911 tape to make him sound racist. When the real tape came out, nothing. It's disgusting what journalism has come to.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 03:39 PM
11

That doesn't mean he's been supporting equal gender rights, and in fact what you said is unrelated.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 05:32 PM
3

Do you have an example of such a place?
/r/MensRights31/05/12 07:21 PM
5

Then they ought to do it based on lots more factors, like race.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 04:39 PM
3

Yeah I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying they qualified the shit out of the story because it's a female rape case.
/r/MensRights26/05/12 02:04 AM
0

Allegedly allegedly apparently allegedly. Did any of it really happen? I've never seen that many qualifiers in one paragraph before.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:07 PM
-1

Hoe's Law.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 07:00 PM
8

They never would have gotten a warrant to do this if they hadn't tricked him into driving the car. I believe they did that because drivers give implied consent to drug and alcohol testing. One more thing to add to the list: Don't talk to police, Don't consent to searches, Don't drive if they ask you to.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:13 PM
1

I think it's posted here mainly because of the male suicide issue, especially because he's so young. Not everything has to be a "Men vs." issue in order to be here.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:01 PM
2

/r/blackfathers
/r/MensRights23/05/12 01:36 PM
2

Devil's advocate. Isn't this partially rejecting the benefits awarded to men by society? I thought the issue was that we're expected to fulfill the unpleasant duties of manhood, but we are denied or shamed for exhibiting the once-celebrated hallmarks of manhood (strength, stoicism, self-sufficiency). I agree that using "grow a pair" as a tool to shame people into repressing their emotions is shitty. But rejecting the idea that having a pair (being masculine) has its own set of characteristics/be…
/r/MensRights22/05/12 02:14 PM
2

Maybe he didn't want to admit to having sex with his cousin for the following reasons: It's difficult to prove in court (as a male defendant) that rape accusations are false, when the plaintiff's word is typically taken as proof there was no consent. He didn't want you to know he was unfaithful to you. He didn't want to be humiliated by admitting to incest.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 05:25 PM
2

I can think of one way.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:18 PM
5

So... His DNA was in the sperm fraction of the DNA sample from the rape kit? As in, he had sex with his cousin?
/r/MensRights16/05/12 03:06 PM
19

You aren't forced to buy health insurance eith-... Oh wait.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 07:55 PM
3

"Everybody's doing it!"
/r/MensRights12/05/12 12:08 AM
1

Citation still needed.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 12:00 AM
4

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 05:14 PM
3

Maybe false accusers of rape should be sentenced to rape, since they're so comfortable using it to manipulate the system to get what they want.
/r/MensRights11/05/12 03:34 PM
5

Actually it's not against the law to discriminate if you own the business.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 02:13 PM
1

Exactly, but I think that's the point.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 11:18 AM
37

If you reversed the genders, it would be a made-for-tv movie.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:34 PM
3

You think he has time to scroll up?
/r/MensRights24/04/12 02:54 PM
2

This guy.
/r/seduction09/01/12 11:40 PM
2

I think you had it better before - let the other girl take the cab after OP and HB9 get to his place. That way HB6 won't try to convince HB9 to just bail because "it's getting late and you have blah blah fuckity blah to do in the morning..."
/r/seduction09/01/12 11:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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