TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MelissaClick Archive

View 0 posts and 157 comments by MelissaClick 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)
0

Huh?
/r/MensRights17/05/18 10:42 AM
1

they did intend it to apply to state-enforced labor We already established that this is not what anyone is talking about. prison labor Probably you have the wrong idea when you're saying this. Slavery as a punishment for crime didn't necessarily mean something like modern prisoners doing labor. The state would actually rent out convicts as slaves to farmers, mining companies, railroad companies, etc.. The convicts were reduced to the status of slaves and treated as property. On the other hand, m…
/r/MensRights17/05/18 06:11 AM
1

"Involuntary servitude" wasn't referring to conscripted military service.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 05:28 AM
1

No.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 05:24 AM
1

That kind of population decline is very bad economically. You end up with more elderly to take care of, and fewer to produce for them.
/r/MensRights17/05/18 04:22 AM
1

What the fuck are you talking about? Skeptical, as in I didn't believe you.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:16 PM
1

OK. I thought maybe you knew what you were talking about and therefore I would learn something new from what you said. Glad I was skeptical.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 06:51 PM
1

So you were just making shit up and you don't actually know anything about historical court martials.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 05:36 PM
1

Well you weren't necessarily sentenced to death. But anyway, why would they convict of desertion falsely? What's your basis for claiming that the distinction is ignored by courts?
/r/MensRights16/05/18 05:16 PM
1

What's your basis for making that claim? The Brits actually had "cowardice" as a capital offense, also "quitting a post without authority" and "disobedience to a lawful command" so there would be no need to convict for "desertion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_at_Dawn_Memorial
/r/MensRights16/05/18 01:30 PM
2

Obviously not... Although, that kind of argument is not nearly as strong in those instances, since it was definitely intended to protect individual rights from the states and those rights were not explicitly specified (so the intent must have been to protect unspecified rights). With "involuntary servitude," you are arguing that a phrase applies to a completely different social institution than was originally intended.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 12:41 PM
1

Logically possible but I don't think realistic.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 08:12 AM
0

Yeah it doesn't matter. Like I said, if there's a draft it implies that people are dying, one way or another. The enemy will have worked out a way to kill large numbers of soldiers one way or another. Or else there will never be a need for a draft.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:56 AM
0

I'm not talking about "these days" I'm talking about future days in which people are being drafted. It will only ever happen if people are being deployed and they are dying.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:46 AM
1

Fleeing from enemy attackers in disobedience of orders is not desertion. Desertion requires an intent to permanently leave service.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:39 AM
1

Slaves also left for Canada, it was called the Underground Railroad.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:28 AM
5

You neglect the rationale of original intentions. It wasn't meant to abolish conscription.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:25 AM
2

The civilians are always potentially subject to attack in any kind of conflict, but they aren't required to subject themselves to attack. They are allowed to flee the war-zone or the entire country, for example. There's not a legal duty imposed on them to accept part of the risk (even if they inevitably end up accepting some risk). Where we need to impose that kind of a duty is where lots of people are going to die, and under those circumstances we ought not to choose women to die (unless we wan…
/r/MensRights16/05/18 07:18 AM
3

I wasn't talking about whether they were subject to attack under international law. I was talking about whether they are being required by their job to subject themselves to potential attack. The point is that whether you're in a combat role isn't an important criterion at all. Most of the navy is just handling transportation of equipment and supplies and troops, and most of the people on board a ship are just normal workers, but the ships will be targeted by enemy bombers if there is a major co…
/r/MensRights16/05/18 05:14 AM
2

Combat missions is the wrong criteria though. Every single person on any kind of naval ship is subject to enemy attack. Every single person on any kind of military base is subject to enemy attack.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:57 AM
1

What percentage is risking death though? A lot more than 2% directly, and probably almost every one indirectly, since ultimately if enough people get killed they would be sent to where the dying is going on. Of course some people in the military really are safe in their position, but probably none of the E-1s.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:53 AM
-2

The reason to have a draft is the risk of death. The draft will be used exactly if and when it is necessary for thousands of men to die. (Whether they are in combat roles or just required to be in locations subject to bombing or enemy fire.)
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:38 AM
1

Doesn't really matter what your role is though. You could be a chef on a battleship, or an electrician, or a nurse -- if the ship is sunk you still die.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:33 AM
2

All countries will draft citizens when militarily necessary simply by changing their laws in response to conditions.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:30 AM
-5

Guys, it doesn't make sense for women to fight and die in a major conflict. When women die, it reduces the population long-term.
/r/MensRights16/05/18 04:28 AM
2

LOL wow.
/r/MensRights15/05/18 08:55 PM
2

After that she moved on to doing (softcore) BDSM and (again softcore) exhibition (i.e. public exposure): https://i.imgur.com/9jnqDmd.jpg Ping /u/Rumpadunk
/r/MensRights15/05/18 05:00 AM
-1

Because she knows what she wants and what she needs are two different things. What she wants is sexual liberty and lack of sexual inhibition, but what she needs is a strong male patriarch to keep her unbridled sexual passions in check. Western men aren't up to the task, hence mass-importing Islamic refugees is the solution for her.
/r/MensRights15/05/18 04:34 AM
0

No, it happened on two different days.
/r/MensRights15/05/18 04:31 AM
0

Also in the video nobody also stripped in solidarity as the article mentions. That's not true. Here, look: https://i.imgur.com/oV9dOXM.jpg
/r/MensRights15/05/18 04:26 AM
1

I'm not even sure it's genuine even to that extent. There is something more base going on, something more to do with primitive social instinct. Imputed misogyny (vilification) gives an impetus for mobbing behaviors. Mobbing is its own reward, and requires no further explanation. These women have been bonding with one another over the experience of bullying nerds since before they even heard of feminism.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 04:56 PM
1

But feminists don't want programming jobs. They may want other women to have them, but they don't want to have them.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 08:12 PM
1

Holy shit, imagine having that as your mom.
/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen06/04/18 04:46 PM
1

Now you're back to acting like you have something to teach. Delusional.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 06:49 PM
1

"stereotyping them as a group" is how you dishonestly refer to making statements about averages. You are hopelessly stupid. You even have figured out that you're wrong but you won't admit it. You won't allow yourself to learn from the correction. That is why you stay stupid.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 05:18 PM
1

"individualism" We're talking about the ability to treat people as individuals, OK? It's not incompatible. You're trying to weasel out of your stupid statements with vague language.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 03:38 PM
1

You fail to answer the question.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 03:09 AM
0

If you still can’t grasp the hypocrisy - I can’t help you. We still have this fundamental problem, where you think that you are somehow in a position to "help" me, while the reality is that you have a relatively low IQ, you don't understand what is going on in this conversation, and you have nothing to contribute or teach. ‘I’m all about respecting people as individuals - now let me tell you what’s wrong with _____ people...’ It's already "generalizing" about women to say that women are less lik…
/r/MensRights19/02/18 02:24 AM
1

LOL, how come you're not banned here? Yeah every single FEMINIST forum everywhere on the internet will always ban criticism, but it isn't true about EVERY FORUM about every topic.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 08:35 PM
2

I can’t dumb it down anymore for you. Fundamentally this is the problem. You're the dumb one, but you don't know it. It's unlikely we can fix that problem here. It ridiculous to rely on sex stereotypes to explain a phenomenon and then later argue that you support individualism - they are exclusive ideas. Men commit far more murders than women. (Sexist hate fact.) BUT -- is acknowledging that sexist hate fact incompatible with giving each individual accused person their own individual fair trial,…
/r/MensRights18/02/18 08:30 PM
1

anal [...] is the only option for men to be penetrated by someone else. Well, it isn't.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:37 PM
2

No, he does not "manage to do just that." (Not if "that" means "issuing a judgment about any individual.") Again you are just speaking nonsense. I'm pretty sure I'm speaking with a brick wall here but if I was talking to a normal capable thinking person I would ask them to specify which specific person he ever issued a judgment about. The inability to do that would then indicate that it never happened. Anyway you'll probably just respond with more incomprehending blabber and I'll stop replying.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:06 PM
2

What you're saying does not make any sense. I also am getting the impression you are not worth talking to.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:04 PM
3

It's not irrelevant. You just failed badly to understand the relevance. an individual basis, which is where he claims to judge people The document is not issuing any judgment about any individual. You have completely failed to understand the point.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 05:21 PM
3

We don't know anything about how he treats individuals, but these two things aren't incompatible in any way. The whole reason to bring up the "generalizations" is to show how they offer an alternative explanation for the "gender gap." The reason that is important is as follows: If the "gap" is necessarily always assumed to be the product of insufficient feminism (e.g. insufficient feminist micromanaging of speech, insufficient "safe space" policy, insufficient rooting out of "implicit bias," etc…
/r/MensRights18/02/18 05:19 PM
1

You don't seem to think that a relationship can exist between A and B where both benefit, but one benefits much more. I didn't say anything like that. However, it's true that I don't think that such a distinction matters here. It is still a matter of reversing side is which here. The bacteria can't survive nearly as well, but they can survive, while large parts of the rest of the ecosystem go extinct. After the cover dies off though, another plant can move in that tolerates the bacteria, and thi…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 01:21 AM
1

We don't punish people who haven't done things arbitrarily. We just don't. It goes against the core values of our very civilization. This isn't punishment. It's different if you're talking about somebody who [...] is pronounced a clear and present danger to themselves or other people Right. That's not about punishment. That makes it very different. a judge is not the right person to do that Maybe not. Psychiatric commitment often requires a jury. This is less severe than psychiatric commitment, …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 11:21 PM
1

Confinement can be used as a punishment. That is very obviously not the only reason for confinement. "Emergency punishment" doesn't make any sense. Also obvious. Final obvious statement: you're just making this shit up as you go along. Before today, "emergency punishment" was not something that ever existed even in your own mind.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 09:50 PM
-1

Emergency punishment LOL, oh man.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 09:30 PM
1

Very temporary ones? Until an immediate hearing can be conducted? No, they are fine. Then you must concede that they are distinct from punishment.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 08:05 PM
1

Well I just looked for the source of that and it turns out I was thinking of a completely different case. My mistake. Nevertheless, it isn't as punishment for past acts that the order exists. It's because of future probabilities. These aren't what the court ruled on in acquitting.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:56 PM
1

Is your position that a restraining order is a punishment and that it should not be possible without a criminal conviction?
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:54 PM
0

No more than psychiatric commitment, or a restraining order.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 07:43 PM
0

Of course, it's experienced as punishment. So would be psychiatric commitment. But the rationale isn't the same as the rationale for punishment. But, on the other hand, this guy is very likely a dangerous rapist Says who? The judge who issued the initial court order and the panel of one judge and two magistrates who heard the appeal. You are making assumptions that because he was charged, he must be guilty. I am making assumptions. Obviously, I don't know what really happened. (Neither do you.) …
/r/MensRights04/01/18 05:09 PM
-1

Well, it technically isn't a punishment. I mean I basically agree that you have to have due process and the only way to enforce that is to throw out the result when due process is violated. But, on the other hand, this guy is very likely a dangerous rapist and there is a pretty substantial public interest in keeping him away from women. Much like how a psychiatric commitment -- based on a demonstration of future danger to self or others -- is a separate thing from a conviction for a past crime -…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:20 PM
-1

This guy was on trial for 3 separate rapes, and these case were thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct (not based on conclusions from the facts of the case). [Had this confused with a different case.] He wasn't convicted, but I'm not so sure about "innocent"...
/r/MensRights04/01/18 03:37 PM
1

Mark the biologist finds bacteria growing in nodules on the roots of clover and, using the limited science of his day, describes them as parasites. He thinks the clover is being forced to give nutrients to the bacteria, and would be better of without them. Randy studies them a century later and discovers that the bacteria fix nitrogen, allowing not only themselves and the clover, but the entire grassland ecosystem to exist at all. He talks a lot about how the clover and the other organisms there…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 01:23 PM
1

But now you're not even talking about the right words. Well, I certainly don't know what you're talking about now. It means that the phrasing to which you objected wasn't even the phrasing I used (in the parent post). Capitalists share some of the value that they create from the result of the work. That's not the same thingCapitalists share some of the value that they create from the result of the work. That's not the same thing as giving away 'work'. This is pointless splitting of hairs. If I s…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:15 AM
1

But that's not what I said. Look again at what I said. I already rephrased it in terms of who is giving away to whom. It was to that phrasing, in terms of "giving away free work," that you said "No, not really." (You still aren't talking about the big picture here, you're still focused on the specific word choices. But now you're not even talking about the right words.)
/r/MensRights04/01/18 03:19 AM
1

In the big picture view, Marx says the workers are giving away free work to the capitalists, and Rand says the capitalists are giving away free work to the workers. No, not really. But she really did say that. I quoted where she said that. [...] None of that stuff even addresses the fact that she did say that in the passage(s) that I quoted.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 02:15 AM
1

It says the same thing about who is producing the value, so that it supports the point that I'm making. It's also not like the language in that particular sentence is to be taken literally. It's not a literal gift. "Gift" is taken to mean "unearned."
/r/MensRights03/01/18 05:39 PM
1

Don't you think that's splitting hairs?
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:51 AM
1

Yes it is strange. Definitely not what I meant to say. Rather, I meant to say that my claim isn't just that something was implied (by what had previously been there), but rather it was directly stated. However, my claim is not that Rand said "wages are theft."
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:46 AM
1

You're saying all this stuff that is focused on very specific word choices that I've made. I'm really not even attached to any of my previous phrasings though, I'm not putting extreme thought into every single word choice here (I admit). I'm talking about the big picture view of the economy and where capitalists and workers fit in. In the big picture view, Marx says the workers are giving away free work to the capitalists, and Rand says the capitalists are giving away free work to the workers. (…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:41 AM
1

Marx says that the capitalists don't deserve it, because the workers do. Yes, exactly. Rand says that the workers don't deserve it, because the capitalists do. Completely wrong. Yet she did say that about the steelworkers, right? I quoted it, right?
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:34 AM
1

Second, what Rand says is not even an inversion of Marxism. She says that the worker, without capital, would only be able to offer a very small amount of marginal productivity. She doesn't literally mean that workers are not morally entitled to their full salary. She repeatedly defends the right to contract, so of course she thinks workers are morally entitled to their full salary as agreed to in the terms of the contract. This is really quibbling, individual-word-focused stuff. She literally do…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 03:34 AM
1

You accused Rand of being an "inverted Marxist." I explained what an "inverted Marxist" would believe. This doesn't match Rand's beliefs. So you are wrong. ROFL, wow. Ever think that maybe "inverted Marxist" isn't actually so precise as to have exactly one meaning? I was pretty clear about what I meant that she was saying. Are you claiming that what I said about her position was wrong, or just that I shouldn't have used the phrase "inverted Marxism" to describe it? Because the latter is what you…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:59 AM
1

You're saying that a Marx's ideas are a distraction from a discussion of one of Marx's ideas? Well no, that isn't what I said, is it? I said that quibbling that you are having. The first group (described in the quotes) should be glad that they get to share in the increased productivity the capitalists provide, but you'll also notice in both of these quotes that she deliberately doesn't call either of them a parasite. True she doesn't use the word "parasite." She does, however, describe the conce…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:48 AM
1

Even Rand herself rejected this characterization Where was that?
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:24 AM
1

The thing is, the book as a whole doesn't work as a defense of the political doctrine of leaving capitalists free of taxation, unless you interpret it as actually being about capitalists. Those other people are thrown in for reasons I did already explain: it makes the capitalists look better, it equivocates the actual political message with something more intuitively attractive. Take all the capitalists and put them in the company of inventors and artists whom everybody already respects, to try …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:21 AM
1

If you don't believe that Marxism requires an objective theory of economic value I never said anything about what Marxism requires. Nothing you have cited so far has at any time implied that "the workers" are "the real parasites" according to Rand. The steelworkers quote is a good one. I think everything I have cited has shown that though. You just ignore this stuff though. Are you reading it? [Rand didn't] allege that wages are theft Sure. But she did say that a factory steelworker "deserved" n…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:13 AM
1

So... because Ayn Rand believes that entrepreneurs (amongst others) perform a vital, non-trivial task that is hard to do and that is critical to a modern economy, this implies that wages are theft? No. It's not implied. It's directly stated. It's the stated consequence of the One Big Union. You've repeatedly evaded the basic point that the "strike" wasn't about Capitalists vs. Workers I was avoiding it because we hadn't reached it -- you were claiming that because of subjective value, it wasn't …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:09 AM
1

You complete moron Take a moment to cool off, friend! The Strikers are not representatives of the capitalist class. Except they totally are. That's exactly who the book exists to defend. They aren't portrayed that way because it makes the capitalists more sympathetic to be mixed up with work like that. The pure capitalist, the idle haute bourgeois, is not nearly as sympathetic a character. Thus in all defenses of capitalists (hardly just Rand's) you will find this equivocation. They are represen…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:36 AM
1

Here's another quote: “In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:29 AM
1

Look, any point you have about "subjective value" is moot because at most it can only show that Ayn Rand was being inconsistent. she cannot be accused of "inverted Marxism" since she rejects the underlying concept of objective economic value upon which a Marxist analysis... or an inversion of Marxist analysis... depends Even if I accept that dependency -- which I don't think makes any sense, but whatever -- it doesn't show what you say here. Instead it just shows that Ayn Rand was not a consiste…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:27 AM
1

her parasites didn't make money by owning capital Obviously. The capitalists are the "host" rather than the "parasite." That's exactly what the inversion is. or preforming labor That's incorrect. The laboring classes are portrayed as parasites even just because they get more out of their labor than they deserve. E.g.: “The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:24 AM
1

Some more quotes: "Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collective countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 03:47 PM
1

Adding the subjective theory of values means that you have to take into account the fact that the animal (capitalist) may spread the seeds in the fruit (organizes the business, absorbs risk, etc). That means that an animal that eats the fruit (a capitalist making a profit) isn't necessarily a parasite the way that Marxism and other systems that only value labor would suggest. Yeah I already addressed this. The whole reason to have the One Big Union of capitalists is to illustrate who is leeching…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 03:22 PM
1

You didn't answer the question. You never have tried to explain how this subjective value business is at all relevant. If you were just to try to spell this out, I believe you would see it does not make sense. as I have said the nature of biological parasitism is irrelevant to Rand's argument I mean, sure, it is irrelevant to Ayn Rand, but look how I am using it to illustrate a point. Can you get the point? I am challenging you to try to explain why your same logic does not apply to leeches. If …
/r/MensRights02/01/18 12:00 PM
16

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. I don't think we should be creating any theories on this. Any theories created in a sexist society will be sexist, and will be used to further sexist aims. Even if we had a perfectly accurate theory of sex based mental differences - what would this theory even be useful for? Holy shit that is brilliant. I am stealing that.
/r/MensRights02/01/18 04:23 AM
1

Fuel is objectively physically real (just like the blood that a literal leech sucks), so that it doesn't matter whether the value put on it is subjective. Yes it does matter. If people didn't want fuel, then it would have no value. If there's some tree root in the Amazon that can cure cancer, it would only have value when people start thinking it can cure cancer, and in turn this relies on people wanting to cure cancer in the first place. Yeah, so what? You can say the same thing about blood. Ye…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 03:54 AM
1

Subjective value makes "economic parasitism" in the Marxist sense (or a simple inversion of that) impossible. Yeah you keep saying that. It makes no sense. Subjective value doesn't make slavery impossible, does it? (If it does, then it must be false, since slavery is historical fact.) Why would you think it makes economic parasitism impossible? A relationship between two organisms is parasitic if killing off one of the organisms will result in the other organism having more resources. The same t…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 01:54 AM
1

Subjective value doesn't imply the impossibility of parasitism. That just makes no sense. And, even if it did, Ayn Rand was calling the workers parasites in that book anyway. If what you said about subjective value was true, it would just show Rand being inconsistent/wrong. When Rand accused certain people of "moral cannibalism" she isn't actually accusing them of eating human flesh. She was using "cannibalism" metaphorically. Her use of "parasite" is similar. And so is my use of "parasite," obv…
/r/MensRights01/01/18 07:40 PM
2

That's a different subject area from economics. This is a really lame evasion. Does subjective value imply that tapeworms cannot be parasites, or does it not? Originally, you claimed that subjective value implies parasitism is impossible. So it would seem that you must accept that either subjective value is incorrect, or else tapeworms are not parasites. And I've read the book more than once, have my own copy of it, and am quite familiar with Rand's ideas. OK, are you aware that it literally use…
/r/MensRights01/01/18 04:35 AM
1

If economic subjectivism is true, than neither workers nor employers can be accused of parasitism because economic value is subjective LOL, how do you figure that? What about biological parasitism? If a worker (a very small one) literally embeds himself into the body of the capitalist in order to feed from his biological resources, can he be a parasite then, or is that not possible because of the subjective value of those biological resources? Anyway, I faithfully related the premise of Atlas Sh…
/r/MensRights31/12/17 03:12 PM
0

Holy shit your brain is fried
/r/MensRights31/12/17 03:05 AM
0

The context was: Even if feminism started Marxist, there is absolutely nothing Marxist about it anymore. Billionaires love feminism, and feminism loves billionaires. I.e., not talking about "left-wing" and "right-wing" but Marxist or not Marxist. Here I was pretty clear: There's no "fallacy" in pointing out that the wealthy are not (overall) prone to support ideologies that say that the wealthy are thieves whose wealth ought to be expropriated.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:59 AM
0

I never said anything about any arguments being left or right wing.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:51 AM
1

The question is dumb because it implies that I claimed it was "a right wing argument." Again, you produce an actual fallacy ("straw man.")
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:49 AM
0

There's a difference between evidence, and conclusive proof. You have failed to make this distinction, which is an actual fallacy. “protected class” Here we have more explicit class based arguments. ROFL! "Protected class" -- the term from legal jurisprudence -- has nothing to do with "class" in the sense of Marxism (division of society into social classes). "Protected class" is literally just using the word "class" to mean "group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group The ignorance of …
/r/MensRights31/12/17 02:30 AM
1

You can come up with a lot of different ideologies by taking the vague outline of Marxism, and replacing the workers and the capitalists with different groups. The most audacious instance of this was Ayn Rand's Objectivism which actually swapped them: it made the capitalists out to be the real workers, and the workers thus became the parasites. Although Ayn Rand was the one to make this argument most explicitly and to take it the furthest (all the way to having the capitalists of the world unite…
/r/MensRights31/12/17 01:23 AM
1

That's not a fallacy. It's legitimate evidence.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 01:12 AM
1

No it isn't. It's not about "guilt," it's about the alignment of interests. There's no "fallacy" in pointing out that the wealthy are not (overall) prone to support ideologies that say that the wealthy are thieves whose wealth ought to be expropriated. Similarly there is no "guilt by association fallacy" in noting that an organization with majority support of Jews is pretty certainly not a neo-Nazi organization.
/r/MensRights31/12/17 12:56 AM
1

Who supports them is evidence of what they are.
/r/MensRights30/12/17 09:21 PM
2

Previous studies indicate that economic status is indeed important in male attractiveness. However, no previous study has quantified and compared the impact of equivalent resources on male and female attractiveness
/r/MensRights30/12/17 07:44 PM
5

Valid point. EDIT: So I looked into this and apparently the only evidence that this happened is some cop claims that she confessed it all to him. But when interrogated on camera she denies everything. Cop could have easily made it up. That's just as plausible as such a murder.
/r/MensRights22/12/17 01:20 PM
1

IT'S JUST A PRANK BRO
/r/MensRights22/12/17 01:15 PM
1

You have to quote the post when you reply to feminists in non-feminist-controlled forums... when they can't delete the comments by other people they delete their own comments.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 09:37 PM
2

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/5we2rh/lawsuit_female_admits_to_assaulting_disabled_male/
/r/MensRights27/02/17 07:07 AM
1

An obvious self-deprecating joke that makes fun of entitlement is somehow a "pussypass denied" Well, the premise of the joke is exactly "pussypass denied." But I do believe that the people who upvoted it didn't pick up on the joke.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/17 06:52 AM
1

"Conspicuous" would fall under "lavish and excess" IMO. But those words all have different meanings.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/02/17 06:47 AM
2

Yeah it's not just do nothing. It's three things: Do nothing Indoors But not in prison
/r/PussyPassDenied23/02/17 02:49 PM
2

Trying to impress people with conspicuous consumption isn't exactly living well.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/02/17 02:48 PM
2

This video is great. It's also case study in the machinations of petty power. Thanks OP.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 09:47 AM
3

The point of alimony is to account for denying someone the opportunity to build their career, pursue an education or really get any specific job experience for an extended period of time Or... more than any of those... to marry someone else.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 08:47 AM
2

In fact, I was thinking of writing a review, but it's hard to produce a true classic on demand. One simply writes and hopes; a work of the caliber of It's 'a good thing' may come or not, at the whim of the muses.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 07:14 AM
-1

I watched that rape apologist film The Red Pill last night and thought I'd check for threads about it here.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 07:01 AM
1

Even more weird, they don't even share a common root: When "hwinan" became "whinen" in Middle English, it meant "to wail distressfully"; "whine" didn't acquire its "complain" sense until the 16th century. "Whinge," on the other hand, comes from a different Old English verb, "hwinsian," which means "to wail or moan discontentedly." (Well, OK, probably hwinan and hwinsian do share a common root.)
/r/MensRights12/02/17 03:11 AM
3

Like it or not it has a lot to do with testosterone which men have a lot more of...
/r/MensRights12/02/17 02:48 AM
1

Well you better get a copy of the video in your possession. Get two copies and give one to someone else.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 02:41 AM
7

Maybe it's because I don't understand what "sack tap" means but why on Earth did you not call the manager, another member of staff and/or the police the moment the guy hit you? You don't want the police around when a woman is claiming you molested her...
/r/MensRights12/02/17 02:40 AM
1

Taught how to get the drunk women to go from the street into your bedroom.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/17 09:27 PM
1

People also disagree on their perceptions of color (is it blue, or green? Is it black, or blue?). The existence of disagreements doesn't demonstrate the lack of an objective distinction. Also, on a deeper philosophical level, you don't understand what "objective" means. There is a subjective experience of attraction and an objective reality that some people are more attractive than others. Attractiveness is an objective reality because it's an objective, measurable fact that some people "attract…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/11/16 12:43 AM
0

When the turnover is high, the existence of drivers doesn't prove it's sustainable.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/16 03:09 AM
1

No. All of the people downvoting me are people who have never said something that has any chance of being worng.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/16 03:06 AM
1

Which 85%?
/r/PussyPassDenied02/09/16 12:35 AM
7

most computer programming jobs already have fairly good pay Yeah but not that good. That's all I'm saying. why would he quit for a job that he isn't sure he will enjoy doing for maybe a bit more money I'm not saying everyone would. I'm saying some people would. And they aren't. the job is probably pretty sustainable, otherwise they wouldn't have so many fucking drivers. Actually the turnover is super high. Most of the drivers at any given point are new.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 06:03 AM
-1

Am I on trial here? Here's an interesting article btw: http://therideshareguy.com/why-hourly-guarantees-are-a-sham/
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 04:56 AM
-18

I'm not making it up. I am just repeating shit I heard. shrug
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 03:10 AM
12

Eh, I guess it depends on where you are, but there are plenty of people who make a lot less. EDIT: Also, plausibility check... if anybody could make $2k/week ($100k/yr) as an Uber driver, you'd have people quitting computer programming jobs to drive Uber because they needed the money.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 03:09 AM
4

Yep. It's basically the worst job you can get in the USA. Pays less than minimum wage [EDIT: maybe], no compensation for the wear on your car, work is sporadic and unpredictable (but you have to be on call when not getting paid), zero job security. Creating jobs like those is how you become a billionaire.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/09/16 02:00 AM
1

I think I read that Lyft does have drivers rate passengers.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/08/16 07:23 AM
2

Even as a kid, I always knew I would make a difference in the world.
/r/MGTOW28/08/16 03:06 AM
7

The professors who created the problem are not the same professors who are in fear.
/r/MGTOW28/08/16 03:05 AM
1

Part two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADilenuIalQ "The quandary of consent | part 2" EDIT: Also, the reddit thread: https://np.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/4cv91h/the_trial_of_jian_ghomeshi_the_fifth_estate_3/d1pgnxr?context=10000
/r/MensRights06/04/16 02:40 AM
3

This post duplicates another: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4d9449/the_quandary_of_consent/
/r/MensRights06/04/16 02:40 AM
1

This is what I thought that article "Schroedinger's Rapist" was going to be about when I had read only the title.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 02:38 AM
1

Shameless.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/03/16 12:55 AM
1

I replied to a specific claim that you made. I didn't "disagree with your advice." Continuing to misconstrue what I say is really disrespectful on your part.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 09:42 PM
1

I'm getting tired of explaining to you what things in this conversation are talking about, but OK, once more... After I brought up the example, you repeatedly made statements premised on the idea that sex would happen, such as: Maybe it's a matter of libido. To me if the alternative to never or very rarely having sex is that a stranger might think badly of you [...] I didn't say anything the first time, although I did notice. But then you went on to make the same assumption again: you won't risk…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 07:20 PM
1

It's just an example because you challenged me to provide one, as if it was impossible to do. You could also get around that by keeping your business private But that isn't the example. The example is: you're seen in public, and people notice. That's an example of a cost. By the way, you don't seem to get that one isn't guaranteed sex with a fat woman just by being willing to be seen with her. Indeed, being publicly rejected by the fat woman is a particularly costly version of the example scenar…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 06:43 PM
1

So you did forget what we're talking about! OK, let me remind you. We're talking about whether something can "hurt your chances" of "find[ing] a sex partner." What I said was that being seen with a fat chick (in a way that implies sexual attraction) is an example of something that can hurt your chances of that.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 05:59 PM
1

Did you forget what we're talking about? Strangers thinking badly of you is a significant cost in this context.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 05:50 PM
1

Sure. Example: a man is seen in public with fat chick. People notice.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:37 PM
1

It depends.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:32 PM
2

It's meant to illustrate. It's not an argument. Humans don't have financial value like horses do, but they do have the same basic mammalian sexual economy -- leading to the same evolutionary pressures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment#Sexual_selection_and_parental_investment Do you think you can you explain why not being "irrational" and not being "on sale" makes a difference here?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:14 PM
1

All men hesitate to commit. Actually, all people hesitate to make any kind of (sincere) commitment (not even just in relationships). But men, particularly, hesitate to commit more than women, since they have more to lose by committing than women (or at least their instincts tell them so).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:05 PM
1

Look, the example is meant to illustrate something to help you understand. But if you don't want to understand it won't help. You can lead a horse to water...
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:02 PM
1

The same principle applies to other animals for the same reasons.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 03:48 PM
1

You're assuming there's no cost to "expanding your options," which isn't a valid assumption.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 07:09 AM
1

Well, it's much more "polygamous" now... in an abstract sense (the distribution is similar to polygamy). Like polygamy, it's definitely not "better for everyone," since there will be a larger portion of sexless males -- but it's better for some.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 06:08 AM
1

I'm not assuming that expanding your dating pool will guarantee you success, but it certainly won't lower your chances. That doesn't make sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 06:01 AM
3

We know how to fix their bodies Well, no. It's not medically possible to change a man into a woman or vice-versa. All you can do is make one look (more) like the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 05:55 AM
2

Think about animal breeding. A stud is a (financially) valuable male horse. The more valuable the horse (the more desirable its genetics) the more it will be bred. Thus its number of breeding partners provides an estimation of its value. This principle is completely absent for a female horse. In fact if the female horse were deliberately mated with the stud, but then accidentally allowed to mate with some random male horse of no particular value, so that nobody would know which male was the fath…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:52 AM
2

Sleeping with a virgin without any commitment to her is recognized as a harmful (and/or shameful, and/or conflict-creating) thing to do. When a man finds out that a woman is a virgin, he's suddenly put to the question (in his own mind) of whether he's willing to offer a commitment that would be commensurate with taking her virginity. In all probability, he's a typical asshole who doesn't actually care about the woman, so being confronted with this question and situation is something he doesn't e…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:35 AM
1

Rapists, murderers and other scum is deeply hated and their social status is negative infinity That's for people who have been socially labeled and punished for those things, not for people who got away with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 04:08 AM
1

What? Why? If I say that Americans speak English and Mexicans speak Spanish do you feel the need to "see the exception"? The thing is that talking about exceptions does nothing to assist the project of ascertaining how the world works and why. Not unless the exception itself derives from a(nother) rule. To illustrate, an example: Rule: males are larger than females. Informative exception: not in species where parental investment is equal between sexes, then they're the same. Informative exceptio…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 03:42 AM
1

It does if alphas are both more attractive and more likely to be killed or to die taking risks. Or even just to take the kind of risk that destroys their attractiveness. (And obviously betas or even literal cuckolds can still have some offspring.)
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 03:25 AM
6

Why is it you categorize yourself as "Blue Pill Woman" then? What is it you disagree with about "Red Pill"? PS. I don't read this forum; I have no idea what's going on here.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 03:23 AM
1

Donald Trump [...] knows his niche', and he plays it to the extreme, without compromise You need to appeal to the most people possible You know, appealing to the most people possible isn't the same thing as appealing to everyone. Appealing to everyone isn't always possible, because different people conflict with one another, and sometimes two groups of people will simultaneously insist that you ... disavow ... the other group. Trying to appeal to both groups means appealing to neither. Trump may…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/03/16 03:15 AM
1

Nope. When a man asks another man to go to a bar (or whatever else), it's never implied that the person asking will pay.
/r/RedPillWomen23/03/16 02:22 PM
1

I've been reading "reclaiming femininity" and manosphere blogs (not MGTOW) and they seem to be giving conflicting advice. Men are telling their readers to make women pay at least 50% of the time, while the women bloggers are saying not to pay, or if you do offer and he lets you pay, that's a bad sign when you are first dating. Different people think different things. If men want us to be feminine and embrace those traditional traits, why are they rejecting the masculine nature of providing? It a…
/r/RedPillWomen23/03/16 02:14 PM
2

Melissa Click does not "kid." Also, that word usage is ageist.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 09:31 AM
2

Trump rally Incidentally... https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialJusticeInAction/comments/4908t8/disgraced_former_professor_melissa_click/
/r/MensRights10/03/16 04:46 AM
2

The difference is, when you say "due process" it's just a code-word for reinforcing patriarchal rape culture. The fact is, white males simply don't need "due process" because they have something much more potent -- male privilege.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 04:37 AM
3

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-curators-vote-to-fire-melissa-click/article_4b0ae653-2d61-5f3f-9ede-a129d12f0fd1.html The board voted 4-2 in favor of termination during a closed session in Kansas City, with Henrickson and curator John Phillips opposing the move, UM System spokesman John Fougere wrote in an email Thursday. Curators David Steelman, Donald Cupps, Maurice Graham and Phil Snowden voted in favor of firing Click.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 10:28 PM
1

:(
/r/MensRights26/02/16 09:31 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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