TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Libertarian_Atheist Archive

View 4 posts and 71 comments by Libertarian_Atheist 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)
6

Don't mind academic circlejerks until they get a little on you.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:08 AM
1

I don't get the jo. . . ooooh, oh, I see. . . horrible, just horrible. ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:34 AM
1

So raising women's abuse on par with children's doesn't demean their position as adults in reference to men? If the abuse of a woman is worse than the abuse of a man, this isn't sexist? Making the condition of one person more important than another based on gender is the definition of sexism.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 08:51 AM
2

The problems in the muslim culture run much deeper and are more than simply cultural. I think the majority of men are subjugated to the will of the rulers and potentates there and it promotes a chain of abuse.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:29 PM
3

Fighting for shared interests can be a very positive thing. Though, there is always the danger of the utilization of "group thought and group victimization" in the effort toward shared interests. It seems to affect the least forthright of any group, those who wish not for equality or restitution but for an upper-hand themselves. Even if they understood their actions and words could lead to more abuse of either men or women, it would not matter to them, they are out for their own empowerment and …
/r/MensRights09/07/12 08:00 AM
2

Agreed. . . again I think it was the correction of the Iran jingoism that made me ease up judgement on the sexist portions. The bellicose posing of the US in regards to Iran is scary. I fear the deaths of many more innocent men on both sides (another area where we are unfairly put at risk more often; but then I'm against war all together).
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:02 PM
11

Okay, admittedly true. How about this (I hate nationalism so I will go with animals): Zoology of Men: 16-22 - like cats - inquisitive and curious 23-30 - like wolves - sharp, quick, and keen hunters 31-50 - like eagles - wider perspective on things, swoops in selectively with the right timing 51-70 - like owls - sparing of energy and cautious, still ready to spring into action when the situation calls for it 71+ - like elephants - all wise and all knowing, deep and thoughtful with a life filled …
/r/MensRights17/05/12 08:37 PM
25

I get what you are saying but the point of the parody was to frame the problem of the rampant sexism in the picture. In order to illustrate how sexist it is to women it helps to show them the mirror image only going the other way. Also, I upvoted it primarily because of what he said about Iran. I think the picture shows a clear misunderstanding of Iranian politics and, in so doing, successfully condemned both men and an entire country in one sentence.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 07:47 PM
2

She was being literal. She said men didn't push baby carriages. That was a lie. The photograph she posted showed that, not only did men push baby carriages, but they did it around her as a child then. Do you get that? Are you cogent here? Mental dissonance can be difficult, I know I was raised in a cultish Christian sect.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:23 PM
2

So. . . saying that men never pushed a baby stroller or changed a diaper in the 1950's is not a lie?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 05:07 AM
2

I'm sure she will understand if you approach her in the right manner. I personally believe that almost anyone of some intelligence is reachable, it is all in the rhetoric. Imagine you are on opposing baseball teams playing alternative rules where points are won by aiding the other team score, your goal is to help her knock a ball out of the park, it is all in the pitch.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 09:38 AM
2

Try to think critically about what she is trying to say and then elaborate on it in a way that is comfortable for her. Some of the most intellectual people can clam up if you go right for the neck, which you very well could do, but you can get a lot more results by identifying the person's real desires and then directing the conversation in a way that is supportive of those desires. For example, if she brings up equality in the workforce, bring up dangerous work environments for men and then exp…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 09:14 AM
4

First of all, no one is a "white knight" per se, in my opinion. I don't even think of men who do not see both sides as "delusional," merely not critical. Just the way that some men are raised to be misogynist, some men are raised in the older mid- to late-twentieth century ideals of gender liberation. This is not a bad thing, it is a part of the process. "Men's Rights" are not a cause that requires head-on confrontation and "fighting," it is an inevitability. The truth is that many women around …
/r/MensRights01/05/12 08:51 AM
1

Yup. But she was an atheist and did not care for Judaism.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:20 PM
1

First of all, corporations are empowered agents of a state, they represent the worst kind of market interference. They are not people and therefore should have no rights. In a free market, there are no corporations, just companies of people working together. The solution to healthcare is to lift the regulations that limit the building of hospitals and medical schools. In the US, med schools turn away tens of thousands of perfectly qualified medical students every year. There is demand but the ma…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:58 PM
1

Not sure but I'm positive that she would be 100% against male genital mutilation. I'm also sure she would have wanted fair treatment in sex crimes of both kinds. In her day, though, men really were not at all disadvantaged so this must also be taken into account.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:56 PM
1

Good question. I would bet that she would have some critiques but would mainly have an issue with some of the adherents.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 07:52 PM
1

I always find this argument tedious every time I see or hear it. Why? Because if market anarchism were so good for the superwealthy, why have almost none of them taken it up? But let's get down to basic logic. If a large monopoly / oligopoly has never existed without government help then we can deduce that it is unlikely without government help. Monopolies and oligopolies destroy competition for labor, thereby lowering the average wage in an industry. So how does this work? A history lesson perh…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:54 PM
1

Same to you.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 04:31 PM
3

Well, you should probably do some reading on my views because free markets do not lead to monopolies and mass accumulation of wealth. This is a myth spread by statist socialists to convince people they need government. For instance, a monopoly has never formed without the aid of government. In a free market, the largest class becomes the middle class. Those wealthiest in a free market are always at risk of losing that wealth, they would rather not incur the wrath of the middle class masses. With…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:21 AM
5

Politicians will never be held accountable. Police, fire protection, and defense can be provided without the state. More cheaply, more efficiently, more humanely, and with accountability with market forces. The state benefits the wealthy more than anyone else. If it did not, it would soon change, either those with wealth would lose it to those with the power quickly or those with wealth would take the power. Every time the Federal Reserve inflates prices, it benefits the biggest debtors the most…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:53 AM
6

I'm anarchist as well actually. I think perhaps you should understand it better before labeling it "nutty." Personally, I find statist ideologies abhorrent and vicious in practice, I would call them "nutty" but I do not because most people who are won over by statist arguments are not nutty, they are simply under the delusion that statist solutions work. Now, politicians? They are nutty.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 08:35 AM
1

Wow, thought I was reading The Onion for a moment, then I realized it was really abcnews. . . sick that they figure this kind of violation of privacy acceptable.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 04:33 PM
2

Did you go watch the video I linked? Did you see the baby screaming at the top of its little lungs? That's not an emotional response. That baby feels pain and the only way you could possibly think otherwise is if you are trying to make a religious excuse of some kind for it in you head. "Scientists" used to argue, much the same way, that women weren't capable of sexual pleasure and desire the way men were. Want me to show you their studies? If you cut the skin of an infant when it is not necessa…
/r/MensRights16/12/11 06:56 PM
1

HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9C6T9QoLTM The old "theory" that the baby does not feel pain has LONG been debunked as crap pseudo science designed to legitimize brutal religious practices. It's just like the theory that it is easier to clean when circumcised (as if that mattered if it were true). It's all crap to carry on barbaric, inhumane, and absolutely unnecessary infant mutilation.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 07:28 AM
2

I ask for objective, scientific proof of this being harmful or damaging for the baby (I do have scientific studies/articles for the opposite). And I'm done with you. You're an idiot pure and simple. Have a nice life!
/r/MensRights16/12/11 07:17 AM
1

philosophy and law are subjective Hey, good job repeating precisely what I said but in dumbed down language. There's an inherent danger in labeling things indefinitely "evil" based on your emotional response to it It's not an emotional response simply because you think it is. THAT is an opinion. Cutting baby penises forcibly for "God" IS evil and that is a FACT, not an opinion. At which point I'll say it's "morally wrong" in light of current understanding and awareness. Doing something "morally …
/r/MensRights16/12/11 06:12 AM
2

Philosophy and law are normative disciplines. Chopping off part of your child's penis for "God" is fucking evil.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 03:11 AM
1

That's sad. I guess the song is true, "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."
/r/MensRights15/12/11 11:14 AM
1

I just think you could have said it a little more simply and it would have been understood easier. I was just trying to give a suggestion. I could have been a bit more "simple" but that's not me. I lose people sometimes. But in my favor, I realized early on in the argument that we were working from different premises. If you have no problem with circumcision, of course you see nothing wrong with a distal cause of it. So if you saw, say, professional basketball as something fine, you would have n…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 08:32 AM
1

In order to get rid of genital mutilation you would have to get rid of the demand for it or the preference towards it. I literally spelled that out, yes, that was my point. Which would have shown that having a preference for it can be damaging. But it is not. Having preference for something, in itself is not damaging. I adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) which is against the initiation of force. The words "harm," "damages," and "damaging" cannot be used lightly, they are very serious o…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 08:11 AM
2

From Wikipedia: The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:42 AM
2

From Wikipedia: The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:42 AM
2

From Wikipedia: The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:42 AM
3

From Wikipedia: The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound…
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:42 AM
1

You gave me goosebumps with this.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 07:20 AM
3

It's not nonsense because if I want to look with disgust at you and such a woman, I can. That is my choice. And, as time goes on, more people will think like me. By the time your child comes of age, he may even hate you for it. If you spent any time actually researching the permanent damage it does to your baby, and you loved your baby, you would not do it to him.
/r/MensRights14/12/11 11:39 PM
2

There you go, if you had read my full reply two comments ago you would understand this: We are working from different premises. Your argument could work for female circumcision as well by the way: If circunsition its not your thing ,hey thats great,but as a parent you get to decide some things about your child,and circumsition at the moment is one of them. So i get you dont support it, or you dont want it, but saying is an evil thing is just your opinion. That works for cutting the clits off peo…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 08:37 PM
2

No, circumcision of an infant IS wrong. It is the FORCIBLE MUTILATION OF A BABY. I am merely disgusted by people who support it. The fact that YOU are not disgusted tells me that you SUPPORT the forcible MUTILATION of babies. Do you support the forcible mutilation of babies? Do you support infant circumcision?
/r/MensRights14/12/11 08:14 PM
7

Yes but you are missing the point of social pressure to fix what is wrong in society. Circumcision is WRONG, it is an EVIL practice against a baby boy or a baby girl. I do not have a right to tell a guy not to seek a circumcised woman either but that does not mean the guy should not be socially pressured to feel bad about this. These are natural social cues that aid us in determining right from wrong. Circumcision is mutilation of the genitals and it is criminal to force it on anyone else regard…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 08:06 PM
1

Do you think he was at first disposed to approach you and/or seek a relationship because you were from the UK? You think he targeted dating non-US girls for this reason? I ask that because many American women I have known have never been with an "uncut" male. I really hate using that term as if "cut" is the default by which to measure the state of a natural male. Think I'm going to use the term natural from now on. I wish my parents had left me alone to be a "natural male." I feel bad for your e…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 07:49 PM
6

Yes and men that judge women on physical characteristics are generally looked down upon and so are women that do it. Generally there is an accepted limit that people do not typically surpass: "Oh she has a nice ass" is okay. "I only date woman with fake tits" is getting weird. "I only date women who have had female circumcision" is wrong. The problem is we do not hold women to this same standard, let me elaborate because the first two are the same but the last one is different: "Oh he has a nice…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 07:41 PM
2

Cool, so you have more trust in the justice system than I do. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 10%, I don't know, there aren't any really good studies on this. I still find it likely that it is higher. But then my definition of false accusation could be different than yours. To me, in order for something not to be a false accusation a "rape" conviction has to fulfill the following (this is a narrow window that not every rape conviction fits and many fail on at least one part): Sexual congress (…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 10:29 PM
2

No, I said I find it likely. I didn't say it was. Diction. Use your bran(sic).
/r/MensRights27/08/11 10:02 PM
2

Nice. There are likely just as many false accusations as before 1989, fewer of them lead to conviction since 1989. Are you dense? Have you been actually reading what I've been saying? You've obviously not been paying attention if you do not know what happened in 1989. Also where did you get 2% from? I never said I believed it was 2%. In fact I think it is unlikely that it is less than 10% now. With the advent of DNA testing the number of false accusations that lead to wrongful convictions has go…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 09:26 PM
2

But then again, I show you other sources and you just ignore those. Good job.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:41 PM
2

Before 1989 and I still don't doubt that number. Dude, they didn't have DNA testing back then. Shit man, I find it likely that 50% of cases that were convictions back then were false accusations.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:40 PM
2

I never said that 25% of accusations are false. You read that into my statements.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:30 PM
2

Wrong, you claim it is a poor conclusion to say there are a lot of false accusations off the data (without asserting what you think is a lot or a little), it is not a "bad source." I didn't pull 25% out of my ass either. Nearly 25% of these cases, even given that they have been "cherry picked," being vindicated, at least, means that far more than the number we might like to admit are wrongful convictions. We've had 2,300 cases so far vindicated. That's a high number. Now, either you can claim th…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:23 PM
2

Those are not bad sources, you think that study is bad? But then you believe them when they claim nothing solid can be assumed from the data? Go read the other links as well. If you call the innocence project a "bad source" then you have an agenda and are just as sore as I knew you to be. I'm sorry if you've had some traumatic experience in your life that doesn't allow you to admit that false accusations happen all the time. There are thousands of men around the country serving time for crimes t…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:06 PM
2

LMFAO, yeah because I pulled those numbers out of my ass. You're just sore because I didn't assert anything the paper didn't suggest itself and you can't prove otherwise. Follow the other links and shut up.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:56 PM
2

Let me quote myself: as many as 25% to 40% of cases of rape convictions before 1989
/r/MensRights27/08/11 07:03 AM
2

I answered your question. I understand the quote and I did not interpret in the way they try to say people sometimes do. Read the links, read the reply. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:37 AM
2

What part of this do you not understand?: necessarily Furthermore, I never said it was identical, I said it wasn't nil. Get it? I said it wasn't rare. False accusations are common. I've told you it could be anywhere from 1% to 10% or even more but it is not rare. Not only this but 25% of all DNA exonerated convicts CONFESSED TO THE CRIME: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php Something else, in Canada where they have a much lower rate of reported rapes, between 5 and 6…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 03:02 AM
2

But they are not saying that it does not preclude that false accusations happen and more often than we'd like to admit. Admitting that false accusations happen is not the same as vilifying the victims of rape. I was using the fact that false accusations happen, at the beginning of my commenting here to dispute a MORON who was saying that we do not NEED evidence to convict a man of rape. If they believe we do not need evidence to convict a man of rape, which is what they were claiming exactly, th…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:44 AM
2

No, THAT was a quote from the REPORT itSELF.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:34 AM
2

Ok here's from the actual report than fuckhead: Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests …
/r/MensRights25/08/11 10:39 PM
3

And all I said was that the incidence was not rare, I said it was common. If you have a different opinion of what "common" means that's your problem. I never said the current rate was 25%, I said the rate before 1989 was 25%. I repeatedly posted that because you're obviously and forcefully ignorant.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 07:29 AM
3

The author is saying that nothing in this study supports the conclusion that 25% of rape accusations were false before 1989 it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent. And it does not have a singlular "author" read the report: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Again: it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for r…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 05:55 AM
3

It's NOT a false number, it is an ACCURATE number for the NUMBER OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS BEFORE 1989. What they are SAYING is this number does NOT mean that it is the SAME for the rape accusations that led to FALSE convictions of rape that occurred AFTER 1989. They are saying that JUST BECAUSE the number of FALSE accusations BEFORE 1989 was 25% we should NOT ASSUME that it is the SAME number AFTER 1989. This doesn't mean the numbers mean nothing. But then now we have DNA testing so that likely LOWE…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 03:31 AM
3

When reading the report from which the excerpts shown below were taken, consider that the FBI program of DNA testing of rapists didn't begin until 1989, and that therefore it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent. 25% to 40% of all rape accusations being FALSE before 1989 MEANS that it is COMMON and it is NOT RARE. I never said that it is CURRENTLY 25% but even if it were only FIVE PERCENT or THREE PER…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 12:01 AM
3

I NEVER SAID IT DID, it is INDICATIVE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS BEING MORE THAN SIMPLY RARE. THAT IS ALL I FUCKING SAID. Fuck you are a FUCKING IDIOT.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 11:40 PM
3

When someone says "false accusation", they usually mean "the victim lied about being raped". How? Who uses this? Give me one single example. If I meant the victim LIED I would have said "THE VICTIM LIED." Use your brain. The data is not being "misused." A FALSE accusation is a FALSE accusation, it doesn't mean they weren't raped by someone it means they weren't raped by the person they ACCUSED and therefore the ACCUSATION is by definition FALSE.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 11:07 PM
4

If the wrong person is pointed out, the accusation is by definition false. It's not that the rape didn't happen or was false, it's the accusation that was false. It's called a brain and language, learn to comprehend.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 12:03 AM
10

I have to say you're being sensationalist here. Tell me how we are supposed to convict someone of rape if there is no evidence? You said in you last post above: So according to you a woman must have a witness or show signs of a struggle... so it would be fine for a man to rape a woman at gunpoint, terrified to the point of not moving or struggling, so long as there's no one there to see it? That is retarded. Asking for evidence of a rape and requiring the burden of proof to be on the accuser is …
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:20 AM
1

A well-known symbol for feminism: IMG
/r/MensRights22/08/11 08:35 AM
3

I'd hammer in the evenin'! All over this laaaaaand!
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:13 PM
3

Now I'm depressed. :( Thanks mom and dad, thanks a lot.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:06 PM
1

Sure thing! Good luck.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:45 AM
4

If you love your friend and do not want to see him hurt any further you will read everything on this website: LINK This is an excellent study into the motivations of women when they falsely accuse a man: LINK Call this law firm and ask for help in locating a good attorney for your friend in your area, if you are around Los Angeles see what they can do for your friend and his family: LINK Here is a list of lawyers specializing in rape defense cases, off to the left you can pick your state or city…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:15 AM
2

If I had a hammer. . . I'd build a house for my wife and I to live in mutual respect and love.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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