TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Kai_ Archive

View 1 post and 94 comments by Kai_ 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)
2

DiscussionKai_/r/MensRights29/01/15 09:33 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You have to be doing a lot of school shootings to fear guns being banned... Wait nevermind that's a stupid thing to say please pretend I never said it. Now your turn.
/r/MensRights19/07/25 10:57 PM
1

Stack up OP
/r/MensRights23/02/18 03:02 PM
1

Hahahaha
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:09 PM
2

Turning the phone off would work for most phones. That and monitoring it, once it starts to cycle just swap it out for the next battery. Could easily charge some phones to full with a handful of batteries.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:08 PM
2

Lol
/r/MensRights07/09/17 11:04 PM
5

Nah I'm too busy to help
/r/MensRights20/07/17 10:52 AM
0

ITT woefully and defiantly uninformed opinions about contract law.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:43 AM
3

Bad argument, which is a shame because there are some decent rebuttals that you've just tarnished by association.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:39 AM
1

So sad. How do people as dumb as you even survive?
/r/MensRights20/05/17 07:09 AM
1

Denial and protection. What a combination! Still haven't addressed the point. Waiting.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 10:55 AM
2

You lost on this, stop degrading yourself by begging for more. You'll be allowed to sit at the adults table again when you have something to say about the subject.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 11:34 PM
2

You: the ancients had optics which could help them see objects on the horizon, quotes Wikipedia Wikipedia: the first working telescope was invented in the 17th century Also you still haven't answered the main point so I'm assuming you're a troll now. You have been weighed. You have been measured. And you have been found wanting. You lose. Good bye.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 11:21 PM
2

Why would I read something that you haven't? Last time you provided a source you only read the sentence that you quoted, without realising that your argument was DIRECTLY REFUTED a few paragraphs down. This is like arguing with a cat. Please just try to stop getting distracted.
/r/MensRights18/05/17 01:20 PM
2

Clearly you're totally ignorant about the history of flat earth theory and how lenses work. From your own source (rofl you're shit at researching): The earliest known working telescopes were the refracting telescopes that appeared in the Netherlands in 1608. REGARDLESS HOWEVER: have you ever made it to the bottom of one of my comments? Stop dodging! I don't care if boats are your favourite thing in the world, none of this is relevant to the topic.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 11:37 PM
2

Only if you're a bird person with 20/20+ vision
/r/MensRights17/05/17 09:06 AM
1

Nice photographs... Wait... When we're talking about flat earth theory we're talking about a time well before telescopes. If you can differentiate between sails and sails + hull at 5 kilometres with the naked eye, I'm afraid you're a bird. More to the question, you continue to dance around the central point here. Are you trying to debate or practice cheap adversarial point taking? Because if you're going to be an ass and do the latter, at least be correct.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 07:40 AM
1

Actually you see a dot then you see a ship. This idea that the evidence was all around them but that nobody thought about it hard enough to realise the obvious is frankly preposterous. Philosophers and scientists rigorously investigated the theory for centuries. More importantly, what you've said does nothing to assail the central point that you cannot differentiate knowledge from confident belief when you define knowledge along the JTB lines as posters above have tried to do.
/r/MensRights17/05/17 02:53 AM
1

Nobody has access to a direct source of objective truth. The only thing we have is empirical evidence. In reality, knowledge is not differentiable from belief.
/r/MensRights16/05/17 11:38 PM
23

Now you're the crazy asshole.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 09:02 AM
2

No it's literally not.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 05:11 AM
5

Would make more sense as a "strong / big person" focus and a "a small / weak person" focus, which could probably take place in the same class (obviously with different titles), and should always come with an initiative to make the weak people strong.
/r/MensRights27/09/16 01:58 AM
3

The female classes should also start with education about self-control and non-aggression, but this would probably be perceived as victim blaming. That's sad because the self-reflective/meditative (spiritual for some) aspect of most martial arts is a huge part of the value behind it.
/r/MensRights27/09/16 01:55 AM
1

Despise? That's a little irrational, but good to hear you read the article, even though it does remove a charitable explanation for why that important context was missing. To answer your question and explain the backlash you received, the response here -- You are required by law to have good reason to believe your partner consents. -- removes the original quote -- exactly. even if a woman offers no resistance it can be considered rape? how the fuck does the guy know it's rape then? -- from its c…
/r/MensRights28/07/16 11:01 AM
9

What I'm seeing here is that you didn't read the article. If you're gonna respond to a comment, you want to make sure that you read it in context.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 06:10 AM
1

I would be recording everything. Tape recorder in the pocket every time you expect to be in contact with your daughter or her mother. I can imagine a dozen scenarios that could possibly transpire where you might need to: Prove to authorities/the court that you did nothing wrong. Prove to the authorities/the court that your daughters guardians did something wrong. Prove to your adult daughter that you did nothing wrong. Plus it can serve as a memoir of your time with your daughter growing up.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 02:43 AM
0

This is a fun game. Keep pretending that's what I'm saying, it only shows that you know you're wrong and you have no actual argument. Let's hear it again, come on.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 11:53 PM
0

Good strawman. He was answering a question.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 07:47 AM
0

The old yawn defence. Zzz
/r/MensRights06/03/16 01:33 AM
0

Agreed! And the best way to make sure that your opinions don't come from emotion is to argue logically, which putting words in other people's mouths isn't.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 01:31 AM
0

I'm not saying that his answer was precise, I'm saying that he was answering. One again missing the point. Uhbybynowlolkthx
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:24 PM
-1

If everything that you disagree with came from inference, you are not doing communication properly.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:22 PM
-1

No. Read again. The correct analogy would be: "I mean have the US ever attacked citizens from terrorist countries? Didn't think so." "Actually our nationbuilding abroad has often led to -" "Ah, the old 'It used to be' defense to justify current action." - You This isn't a "yeah, well" it's a "well, actually". He was literally offering up examples that he thought were pertinent to a direct question in the previous comment. I don't understand how you can determine that he's doing anything other th…
/r/MensRights05/03/16 05:12 PM
1

Correlation is different from causation. The causal link shifts in the obesity example, but it does not in the poverty example.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:23 PM
1

"I know a few people who got lucky. You chose to not get lucky!" It's not adding up.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:20 PM
0

to justify current action. What part was that? So tired of people in this sub accusing people of saying shit they didn't say.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 04:11 PM
0

Sarcasm is not the same as disingenuousness. I've been beyond frank. Crack a dictionary. As for the second sentence, are you for real? How do you miss the hypocrisy in accusing deflection while answering only half a comment. Wow.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:44 PM
0

Disingenuous? No that's just a reddit culture buzzword, I'm not being disingenuous about anything. You asked me what the reasoning is behind a stereotype. Think about that for a second. All because you didn't understand that me saying "this legislation is based on this (illogical) reasoning" is different from "this legislation is based on this thing being true".
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:30 PM
0

I would be speculating if I tried to guess what this common stereotype is based on. I do prefer not to speculate, though I hate to ruin the circlejerk of people who can't read thinking that I'm suggesting that the stereotype is true (you included).
/r/MensRights05/03/16 02:45 PM
1

Interesting strawman. Quite a specialty of yours. See you later.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 12:47 PM
1

Are you done with the irrelevant medical diatribe that isn't new information to anyone? Desire can cause erection. Erection is not related in any way to desire. These are contradictory statements under any non-ridiculous definition of "related". Stop trying to argue against an argument that I'm not making. If you don't engage in what I'm actually saying instead of the contentious opinion you'd like me to be saying, I may as well not even bother. Your last comment is textbook social justice warri…
/r/MensRights05/03/16 07:15 AM
0

Erection can occur autonomously. That doesn't mean it isn't related to desire, that's ridiculous. I'm not sure why you can't distinguish between me conveying someone else's reasoning and advocating it, when I explicitly said that I don't think it is logical. It isn't hard. As for the rape activist comment, anyone who suggests that any law be changed could be called some kind of crime activist. To do so is to totally miss the point. I'm saying that age of consent at 18 doesn't reflect the moral o…
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:31 AM
-1

That is the basis of the reasoning behind these laws.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:25 AM
0

Glad to hear you agree.
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:24 AM
1

Who is saying that?
/r/MensRights05/03/16 03:23 AM
-7

I don't think Idaho's laws suggest that raping a girl is worse than raping a boy... It explicitly says the crime is the same for either. Raping BY a woman is treated differently. The reasoning is that under-age men solicit sex more often than women, and need to be erect to have sex. It's not logical, but it's not based on nothing. The rational thing is for consent to be a factor as it is in any other rape case. Also the age of consent and majority should be lower to reflect actual mental develop…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:48 AM
7

Somebody thought you had to post the entire sum of the bail and is about to deny it to save face.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:44 AM
1

Haha no worries at all friend.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 01:36 AM
1

I know I'm being an asshole, but you didn't say that. The reason I'm being an asshole is because your original comment was a massive comical blunder which essentially equated to: Any adult can have sex with a child of any age. But- Any adult couple must be within three years of age of one another. I know we could have read it charitably and deciphered what you meant but it was too funny to pass by.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:31 AM
1

So it's illegal for me to be with a 39 year old if I'm 45? Please undo your downvote now.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 01:37 PM
1

No, none of it is true.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 04:44 AM
3

Hard fail
/r/MensRights25/02/16 10:33 AM
1

It's called 4moms. Are you a shill?
/r/MensRights12/11/15 04:36 PM
1

Fair enough
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:00 AM
1

If my boss misinterpreted it then it would negatively affect me, so no. I thought your point was that it means sex offender, not that some people maybe believe it means that. Either the analogy is faulty, or you've changed your stance.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 06:10 AM
1

That's how I understood it.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 12:16 AM
1

Rekt
/r/MensRights19/08/15 05:16 AM
6

Neither of them could consent, that much is established. Now how do we know who that rapist is?
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:30 PM
2

Good point man.
/r/MensRights13/07/15 01:27 PM
1

Damn it. All you had to do was play it cool man.
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:31 AM
1

Someone gild this
/r/MensRights15/05/15 02:27 AM
1

Interesting how we don't allow this one though.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:11 PM
1

http://kai.systems/blog/posts/philosophy/2015/01/29/words/
/r/MensRights05/02/15 02:10 PM
11

Canada sucks.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 01:38 PM
1

It's just you and me down here. Your sense of grandeur and audience says a lot though.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 10:56 AM
1

I can contradict too, watch! Yes there is. No I'm not.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:58 AM
1

Please quote where I said ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem attack is a very different thing. Another oops on your part. Add it to the list I suppose.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:43 AM
1

I didn't start name calling, you did. I'd be a hypocrite if I did what I criticised you for, which is resorting to ad hominem attacks. You were unprovoked. Saying "fuck you" is rude, but saying "fuck you too" is expected. You're really not having a great day are you.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:36 AM
1

Yawwwwwn. If you have to call everyone else kids and pretend the be the big boy you have issues.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 08:05 AM
1

Very grown up of you. Yawn.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 07:59 AM
4

Zero people are following this so it is just me and you. You're right about this at least, no point wasting my time any more.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/14 05:55 AM
1

I don't care if it's not fair. You're probably not suited to a relationship anyway.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 05:23 AM
3

Unfortunately chivalry is still considered part of dating decency. What kind of autopilot is there if not the kind where you adhere to preconceptions. And how can you judge someone for having the preconceptions society trains us all to have without even affording the time to reflect on them.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 05:17 AM
4

you postured and boasted about how this is what you do I postured nothing nor boasted anything. Maybe my monitor is broken then: http://i.imgur.com/V3Drb2a.png If you're just going to flat out lie, you could at least put in the effort to edit.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/14 05:15 AM
3

I'd say you're spot on. It raises an important distinction between rape of men and rape of women that isn't often talked about.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 04:24 AM
1

Kind of irrelevant to my point, so I'm not sure how to respond.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 04:20 AM
4

When talking about diagnosing mental illness, you postured and boasted about how this is what you do. I'm not surprised that you didn't even know what people who actually do that are called.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/14 04:19 AM
4

Waah waah waah. Big smart pretend psychiatrist man made me cry.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/14 03:24 AM
3

I think they were trying to maximise the impact of that statistic for both genders. They picked the ages at which this shock value starts to drop off in each separate case. If they use the younger age it tells an interesting story though: the CDC reports that 12.3 percent of female victims were 10 or younger at the time of their first completed rape victimization; for male victims, that number is 27.8 percent.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 03:22 AM
4

If she meditated on it and was still adamant that you should pay, then sure, fuck her. If she was just on autopilot with the social expectations and status quo, like a lot of us are when it comes to elements of it that we aren't passionate about or actively engaged in, at least give her the chance to interrogate those assumptions - she might find that she agrees with you.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 02:53 AM
2

Tried to explain how lexicography works in another thread on here and got smashed. Glad to see it doesn't always go that way.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 02:44 AM
0

There is so much wrong within this wall of text, but you're downvoting and resorting to ad hominem so it's patently obvious that you're closed off to any reasoning that isn't your own. If you're actually interested in questioning your assumptions and hearing a counter-argument let me know.
/r/MensRights27/12/14 02:35 AM
4

Yep, that's a professional opinion if I ever heard one.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/12/14 02:22 AM
0

Equating tumblrinas with ISIS is a big pile of hyperbolic fallacy, but I think you know that already so I'm not going to engage in the tedium of pointing out why. It boils down to the fact that the former complain online while the latter behead their detractors (and innocents). Instead I'm going to focus on the thing I know more about - language. You're deriving the meaning of "social justice" piece-wise. This isn't a good idea in the first place, in English we have compound phrases which connot…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:35 PM
3

I feel a little bad about this one, and I would if it were a 77 year old man in the same situation. The officer was too quick to resort to force, and when old people break hips, it can be massively debilitating.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/14 04:47 PM
6

Sweet, where did you study psychiatry? To answer your question, she very likely has schizophrenia.
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/14 03:30 PM
0

How do we know what something "actually means"? I'm particularly interested in where this darker meaning of social justice that you're advancing comes from.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 10:34 AM
1

Devil's advocate checking in. Presenting 3 statistics about women isn't equivalent to ignoring male victims. Aside from those three sentences, the entire piece is gender-neutral. Only if they were investigating not "family violence" but "violence against women" would it be ignoring male victims.
/r/MensRights24/12/14 02:38 PM
3

Gold.
/r/MensRights08/12/14 12:28 PM
2

Wat.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 02:03 PM
3

They did more than whine about it. They contrived a definition which basically made feminism mean "good", and asserted it again and again until it ended up in dictionaries. Now anyone who thinks that genders are equal is a feminist, and anyone who isn't a feminist must hate women. Meanwhile the actual feminists (i.e. proponents of feminist theory) get to laugh and laugh while their patriarchy nonsense is surreptitiously funneled into the public's gaping maw.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 12:28 PM
1

Does anyone know of any decent research actually conducted in Australia? I've been talking a lot about domestic violence lately and I have very little evidence to show for MRA in this country specifically. White Ribbon dominates the political discourse (we even have "To violence against women, Australia says: NO" TV ad campaigns) and most ABS research displays ridiculous selection bias and half of it is joint work with White Ribbon. This meta-analysis has been one of my main talking points but i…
/r/MensRights05/11/14 07:01 AM
3

no they use /s
/r/RedPillWomen13/10/13 04:44 AM
2

This summarizes how I feel. My main issue with the video is that these two young girls act as if they're the first people to have this revolutionary idea that people should be treated equal, and that since their message is so progressive, they need to put it into a song to help the rest of us digest it. So condescending.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:32 AM
5

They recognized that they were also privileged.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 05:58 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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