TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MemeticParadigm Archive

View 0 posts and 85 comments by MemeticParadigm 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)
1

The fear of rape is cultivated through culture. You realize that men catcalling and making sexually aggressive passes at women in public is a huge part of that, right? I agree with you that the problem is a cultural one - women are constantly being reminded, by men's behavior, that they are surrounded by people who want what they have, have the physical means to take it by force, and don't care that their behavior makes women feel threatened. If the culture was such that men were more concerned …
/r/MensRights20/10/17 04:16 PM
-1

Wtf kind of logic is this? Men don't live in irrational fear because they aren't chronically subject to unwanted sexual advances (and also because, despite stats, most men believe they are much less likely to be sexually assaulted than a woman). If the stats were the same, but women were only subjected to unwanted sexual advances as often as men are, they mostly wouldn't live in fear. And that's to say nothing of the role played by the average difference in physical stature.
/r/MensRights20/10/17 12:03 AM
2

How high would the percentage need to be for you to think the fear was justified?
/r/MensRights19/10/17 08:47 PM
3

I honestly dislike this perspective, just because it makes a lot of people sort of philosophically irredeemable - but, fuck, it seriously explains so many of the leaps they make.
/r/MensRights09/08/17 06:02 PM
1

The #stateyourstatus hashtag on Twitter was literally about tweeting about how you have an STD and are proud of it. You got the first part right, please show me where you got the idea that it's about being proud of it. Even in the fucking Breitbart trash you linked, all I see are people saying "I have an STI and it's not a big deal," and then right leaning folks like yourself equating that with taking pride in having an STI. You do realize that there's a difference between not being ashamed of s…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 05:22 PM
5

Findings suggest that STI-related stigma and shame, common in this population, could undermine STI testing, treatment, and partner notification programs. What you incorrectly perceive as "bragging" has shit-all to do with being proud of STI status - it's about reducing stigma through normalization, because stigma undermines testing, treatment, and partner notification programs. It's precisely the same as how conservatives stigmatizing premarital sex leads to things like abstinence-only sex-ed wh…
/r/MensRights09/08/17 04:48 PM
5

There is an innate flaw with his definition of the pay gap that is comparing the average earnings while consciously ignoring other factors. While that's true of the It's when a women earns less than a man definition, it's also true of the *for working the same jobs definition, because the latter ignores the fact that a higher concentration of men in higher paying positions can easily be the result of a trend of deciding which employees to promote, that is biased in favor of men. Ultimately, both…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 03:22 PM
-3

That isn't true, it was true in one dated, specific quote, but overall, it is not. Then why didn't you post a single link to a study/source where it's not the case? Because I'm subbed here, and every single time that I've seen this stat cited with a source, the source has turned out to be specific to young, single, childless women in metropolitan areas. As far as I'm concerned, the stat you are claiming doesn't actually exist anywhere - it's just a matter of people like you citing that study, an…
/r/MensRights06/07/17 09:11 PM
-2

The "women under 35 actually earn more" is an oft quoted statistic. Right, and it's a completely incorrect statistic whenever it doesn't specify the single, childless, and in metropolitan areas qualification. I'm not going to comb over your specific links because I don't need to. I'm not expecting you to, honestly - in fact, I did that work for you by informing you that the numbers I provided already filter out SAHMs. What I am expecting you to do is pay a little bit of attention to the statisti…
/r/MensRights06/07/17 08:55 PM
-6

I was just pointing out that the effect you thought might be skewing the results wasn't actually there. Moreover, wouldn't the mashing together of professions be just as much of a criticism/failing of the sources you provided? You can't disregard one set of results you don't like because of that factor, but then ignore that factor when it's part of a set of results you do like.
/r/MensRights06/07/17 08:38 PM
-13

Well, it's definitely not a matter of SAHMs skewing the results, since the numbers are specifically for people working full-time, year-round. That being said, it does appear to be the case that, at least in metropolitan areas, mothers/wives who work full time make significantly less than single, childless women who work full time - so you're not wrong that the skew is because millennial mothers/wives (who work full-time) get paid less. This thread is about ones in the "dating" pool. Since having…
/r/MensRights06/07/17 08:27 PM
-13

Do you have a source for this? So far I've only found two sources, and they both show men under 35 making more than women under 35: 16-34 men: $35,000; women: $30,000 20-24 men: $27,040; women: $25,116 24-34 men: $40,560; women: $35,620
/r/MensRights06/07/17 07:46 PM
2

Its not germane to the argument. We are talking about parents making a decision to have a proven health benefit preformed on their children. It's actually completely germane to the argument. When you are arguing with people about this, you should keep in mind that the general benefits of circumcision are simply not germane to the debate - only the benefits of infant circumcision relative to adult circumcision matter - because most people aren't arguing against circumcision in general, they are o…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 09:36 PM
12

I mean, you really can find numbers that say entirely different things, just depending on where you look. For instance, the numbers you are citing, AFAIK, are from an adamandeve.com online survey of 1000 people. Another survey, here comes up with 6 out of 7 women preferring an intact penis. Comparisons of experiences with circumcised or intact males are shown in tables 2 and 3. With their circumcised partners, women were more likely not to have a vaginal orgasm (4.62, 3.69-5.80). Conversely, wom…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 08:30 AM
0

They actually mention that and treat with it in exactly the correct way: Our findings were not qualitatively affected by attributing physicians according to evaluation and management claims Which is exactly how you'd refer to a situation where both of your alternate attribution models produced results with significantly worse pvalues than your primary model. In other words, anyone reading scientific literature would correctly assume that the reason they chose that as the main model, was because …
/r/MensRights26/12/16 02:55 AM
6

Here's the actual study: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2593255 They explicitly make note of each of the patient/physician characteristics you are assuming they glossed over, and attempt to account/adjust for the effects of those factors. Obviously, you can claim that their method of adjustment isn't valid, but you can make that criticism of literally any study where a perfectly counterfactual pair of environments doesn't exist to be observed. Just thought you s…
/r/MensRights25/12/16 11:25 PM
9

I'd say the title here is a bit of a stretch, mostly because you generalize the results of the study to all jobs in STEM fields, but the study only looks at approval for tenure track (i.e. purely academia), and there are far, far more STEM jobs outside of academia, than there are tenure track positions at academic institutions. Beyond that, there's some other interesting discussion to be had. Here's a similar study showing bias in the other direction for undergrads. Assuming that neither study h…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:53 PM
7

The problem is that you are failing to be consistent in identifying the supposedly widely held belief you are attempting to challenge. To be clear: the widely held belief that only women are at risk when meeting strangers. and a widely held belief that women are more at risk in casual dating scenarios than men. are two very, very different beliefs. What you are doing here, is presenting this anecdote as though it challenges the latter belief, but when you get called on it (because the anecdote i…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 10:02 PM
3

I don't think that's always true, particularly in any media where you are asking someone to contribute their own viewpoint on something. If "merit" is defined as ability to contribute to the value of the media product being created, and part of the value proposition of that media product is that it provides culturally diverse perspectives, then a potential contributor's "merit" will be partially determined by how similar their own cultural perspective is to the cluster of perspectives already be…
/r/MensRights02/10/16 06:33 PM
1

Including a user defined sensitivity variable doesn't make it not a heuristic, just Google "heuristic sensitivity" (and skip the Avast results, lol).
/r/MensRights21/03/16 09:44 PM
2

Heuristic: If [direction of assessed bias] matches [direction of bias most likely to produce reported results] And [assessed level of bias] exceeds [user defined threshold] Then dismiss reported results as more indicative of bias than factual basis. Pretty sure that's a valid heuristic, which tells us whether or not we should dismiss something out of hand.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:00 PM
0

So, then, it must not be possible to torture someone to the point where they would prefer to just die, right? Since being alive is always preferable to being dead?
/r/MensRights13/01/16 08:32 PM
3

I get what he's saying, though - the whole thing is sarcastic, obviously, it's meant as a parody of the sort of person who says, in earnest, that, "Clearly all men are sexual predators and yadda yadda," but the last sentence is something that person (the one you are doing a parody of) would actually say sarcastically. So, the first two sentences are just you sarcastically pretending to be that person, but the last sentence is you sarcastically pretending to be that person being sarcastic. In oth…
/r/MensRights16/12/15 08:59 PM
1

if, say, these people started executing the people on this list starting with Not comparable, because there's no way to defensively, nonaggressively utilize the "tool" of executing people on a list. Well, they ARE, say, coloring "black" both /r/coontown and /r/redpill, so using your insanely stringent paradigm of analysis, should we assume that it's not "simply" differentiating between "subreddits" and actually DOES overtly conflate two separate ones? Are they broadcasting this list, trying to b…
/r/MensRights01/08/15 03:38 AM
1

Well, that certainly is a way it could be used, so there's really no way to prove that it won't be used in that way - but the same can be said of virtually any tool, and automated data gathering/visualization is one hell of a tool. If the list being made didn't differentiate by sub, that would constitute some evidence in favor of what you are suggesting, but it does differentiate. As of right now, I haven't seen any hard evidence that it's being used to equate /r/MensRights posters with /r/CoonT…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 06:18 PM
1

Well that's the point - it's not meant to lump them together for offensive use - those subs have different crowds, but they are all enriched for users who hate SRS, and it's meant to highlight when anti-SRS sentiment or w/e is coming from a specific subset. Also, pretty sure RES can be set to give each sub a different color tag using that list, since each record is annotated with the sub it comes from so, ostensibly, they aren't necessarily lumping the "cliques" together, they are just aggregati…
/r/MensRights31/07/15 02:35 AM
1

*Shrug* As a data scientist of sorts, I think it's inherently interesting to identify cliques within a population, and then visually highlight those cliques, so you can observe how they behave within the larger population. I can certainly see how such a visualization, provided in real-time, might be a very useful aid in moderating one's own forums, especially if those forums attracted a certain kind of attention. Scripted data gathering and analytics have been a reality of online communication f…
/r/MensRights30/07/15 01:47 AM
1

As I understand it, the stated purpose is to be a tool to help in identifying whether the response to something is largely coming from a particular subset of Reddit's userbase/brigading, and judging whether someone is asking questions about SJW concepts in good faith, or concern trolling. The idea is to integrate it with your RES tags, so it's easy to visually identify such people/groups. It's not meant as a personal blacklist, but as a tool for profiling user responses.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 10:24 PM
5

As I understand it, the stated purpose is to be a tool to help in identifying whether the response to something is largely coming from a particular subset of Reddit's userbase/brigading, and judging whether someone is asking questions about SJW concepts in good faith, or concern trolling. The idea is to integrate it with your RES tags, so it's easy to visually identify such people/groups. It's not meant as a personal blacklist, but as a tool for profiling user responses.
/r/MensRights29/07/15 09:52 PM
1

I actually think that much more of the gap between empathy for women and empathy for men is social/cultural than biological. We are taught, from a young age, that men who overtly display emotions linked to vulnerability (i.e. not anger) are shameful, so we do our best to avoid or ignore such displays from men, but not from women, from an early age. But engaging those displays, those vulnerabilities, in other people is how we learn to empathize so, from the very get-go, the growth of our tendency…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 05:31 PM
2

Well, it could be that I don't sound especially opposed to the idea of legal consequences for intentionally hurting someone's feelings - which is probably because I'm not because, when it's overtly intentional and it goes beyond a certain severity, it's just plain old harassment, which is something a lot of people who clamor about the sanctity of free speech in an anti-SJW capacity don't seem to want to acknowledge, or they seem to strongly believe that harassment which happens over the internet…
/r/MensRights02/07/15 01:39 PM
1

I think it could be abused in a patent-troll manner but, again, because proving intent is such a tricky thing, I don't think you could actually win a case against someone just for exercising speech that was offensive - you'd need a pretty clear case of overtly intentional harassment to actually pin someone with a conviction.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 08:27 PM
3

No, I'm pretty sure the 3 components are AND'd, not OR'd, to qualify as an offense - I actually sliced off a "; and" at the end of part (a) when copy+pasting, so yeah, definitely AND'd.
/r/MensRights01/07/15 08:23 PM
6

Honestly, I think this is basically just NZ's version of cyberbullying laws, which are already on the books in a lot of states. It seems like it might have a somewhat expanded scope, relative to those laws, but I also think the expansion mostly goes in to areas where the law is effectively unenforceable so, in practice, I don't think it will differ much. I just... I try not to ever dismiss concerns about the potential negative effects/nefarious uses of proposed legislation, I try to give people …
/r/MensRights01/07/15 08:09 PM
0

Without a definition of harm that clearly delineates hurt feelings or offense from actual harm, intent isn't the biggest concern, in my opinion. I would disagree. There are certainly still issues, but this means that, for instance, even if we consider being offended to constitute "harm", and I post a TRP-esque communication online which gravely offends someone, no legal offense has been committed unless it can be proved that my express purpose in posting said communication was to cause someone h…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 05:20 PM
11

I think it comes down to how stringent the burden of proof to demonstrate intent is in NZ law. From the actual bill: 19 Causing harm by posting digital communication (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and (b) posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and (c) posting the communication causes harm to the victim. So, if that makes it as di…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 03:23 PM
4

in fact some of it has made me think a little differently AFAIC, that's among the highest praise a reddit response can receive, so thank you very much =) However, that being said, I have an issue with the state of mind to not be able to take the solution/advice on board. You mention emotional validation, but doesn't offering emotional validation/support go without saying? Two things: First, I should hope that it does go without saying, however, there's a not terribly uncommon stance among folks …
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:56 PM
1

I had no intention to come off as adversarial. The main reason I say it is because I'm a guy as well, and I would similarly describe myself as not tending to be emotional, but similar to someone who tends to be very sedentary finding that physical activity is highly enriching, I've found that making an effort to consciously engage that other part of my brain is very enriching, and one secondary effect of that engagement has been a marked improvement in the reception that my proposed solutions te…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 08:04 PM
1

I think this is somewhat valid - but no more valid when applied specifically to women than any other "tribe". Changing the tribe in question just changes what situations are typically seen as the worst problems, and what solutions are seen as unacceptable by the local tribe. For instance, I think a similar picture could be drawn with regards to a group of guys on a Vegas trip renting a minivan, even though for their group size and itinerary it might be the choice with the most utility.
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:46 PM
-1

If your intention is only to vent rather than solve the underlying issues Well, the idea is that the two are complementary. The first problem is that emotional distress is preventing the person in question from even having the ability to properly parse your offered solutions, which renders your solutions useless even if they are excellent solutions. It's probably also a different approach from what most other men would do, as well (...) it seems to me like the most appropriate people to do this …
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:34 PM
3

If you come to me with a problem, I am going to try and fix it. Problems by their very definition need to be dealt with. The problem with this approach is the idea that you can fix their problem. I mean, if you are offering to personally make it go away somehow, I guess that's a reasonable stance, but most of the time what you are trying to do is offer a theoretical path for them to fix their own problem - you aren't the one fixing it. That means that you need to realize that you aren't creating…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 07:22 PM
10

I really find it difficult to sympathize with someone who has a problem that's so big they need to vent about it, but who isn't looking for a solution to the problem. I think, a lot of the time, (in my personal experience, most of the time), it's not a matter of not wanting a solution to the problem, but of not wanting a solution right that minute, because the headspace that one is in when one needs to vent is very different from the headspace that is most conducive to problem solving or critica…
/r/MensRights09/06/15 04:50 PM
17

Like the fucked up shit he did to her to make her so nuts/trigger her insanity. If someone has insanity just waiting to be triggered, then you don't have to do anything fucked up to trigger it, you can trigger it just by being perfectly reasonable - case in point, the officer she slapped the shit out of. Now, if you hadn't centered your question around an assumption that he did some fucked up shit, and instead just focused on the general question of what aspect of her life caused her to develop …
/r/MensRights27/05/15 04:02 PM
2

Ahh, I thought you might be saying that my suggested egalitarian solution was subjugating to trans persons in some manner, because of my last sentence. I hadn't thought about this motivation for the female + male/female bathroom configuration, but it certainly does provide a convenient out to say, "Here, see, your bathroom needs as a trans woman are totally being addressed," while still tacitly denying your identity by denying access to woman-specific spaces.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 06:27 PM
1

?
/r/MensRights07/05/15 04:49 PM
1

It's not that there should, it's just that, since men's bathrooms are rarely over-capacity at the same time as women's have idling facilities, there's no gain in efficiency to be had from changing it, so businesses just don't bother.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 04:48 PM
15

Because dudes, on average, take less time in the bathroom, so it makes sense from a load-balancing perspective, since the facilities in a male-only bathroom will tend to do more idling than those in a female-only bathroom, given that so many buildings are already set up with male and female bathrooms that have approximately the same service capacity, even though men spend less time using said facilities. The female + male/female setup makes it so that, when the female bathroom is above capacity …
/r/MensRights07/05/15 03:56 PM
2

They will not only refuse to acknowledge that this could still be happening today, but will refuse to acknowledge that it happened in 1988 by going back to their claim that it can't possibly be true anymore. Ahh - I guess I'm just fortunate enough to not have run into that frequently enough to notice a pattern. Data is data. Data that isn't properly contextualized is worthless but, as long as 30 year old data is interpreted in the context of the environment 30 years ago, acting like it's somehow…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 05:07 PM
2

The way armchair statisticians would have you believe, 1988 data is too old to tell us anything about 1988, because by golly, it's 30 years old. Err, did you mean for that 2nd 1988 to be 2015? I ask because, if you didn't, your example of an armchair statistician is electing a position that's really hard to defend in the 1st place, and I don't think I've really seen much of anyone defend that view, so it seems a bit strawman-ish.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:47 PM
6

My biggest problem with this piece is that the work they cite twice (and refer to sans citation at least one other time, and refer to as "the best of these [13 major] studies"), M. Anne Hill and June O’Neill, “Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants,” appears almost completely inaccessible - it's not online as far as I can tell, it's available in print at 4 libraries in the entire US, and I can't readily find a place to even order it, so it's impossibl…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 04:34 PM
2

The study is old and no longer applies. Just want to point out that, at least in this case, a caveat that older data may well be a significantly poorer source of trends that are relevant to current day is stated right in one of the author's sources: Since the effects of divorce and single parenthood may depend in part on how frequently these family structures occur - that is, the extent to which they are non-normative - contemporary data are preferable for generalizing to current effects of fami…
/r/MensRights06/05/15 03:47 PM
2

I quite enjoy when you can have a decent conversation/debate on reddit without petty name-calling and such. :) I know, right? In this, I disagree...slightly. We've already mutually established that experience is a boon. But in my mind, gender and race do not necessarily equate to experience. While I would agree on this point, I would also say that stated platform/policy positions don't necessarily equate directly to decisions made once elected, for a plethora of reasons ranging from the scummy a…
/r/MensRights04/05/15 07:21 PM
3

I don't see how this is a failure to recognize anything. I may have worded that a bit more aggressively than necessary. I interpret "platform" as basically being a list of policy positions, and each individual voter following your described procedure would prioritize those and select the candidate who had the greatest level of agreement with their positions, weighting agreement on each individual policy by that policy area's assigned priority. My interpretation, then, of Platform first, gender/r…
/r/MensRights04/05/15 06:52 PM
3

People need to vote for people who will improve their communities, their towns, their states/provinces...their countries. You seem to be highly focused on geographic scales of improvement, so I would tentatively guess that by "communities" you primarily meant "community" in a way that is mostly synonymous with "neighborhood", since that would perfectly match the hierarchical progression of geographic scale that the rest of your list follows. I would, however, suggest considering what you propose…
/r/MensRights04/05/15 05:24 PM
1

I think I provided a very good example[1] of alternative strategies, even if they're not "pursuit" based they're very good dating advice in response to some which would say "pump and dump" and to string a girl along as a plate, letting her think there is a chance for a LTR then dumping her when she brings it up. Again, all this advice is about what to do once you've already established a relationship with mutual attraction. It's good advice once you get to that point, but the advice gap is in th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 08:46 PM
1

You're arguing against the dictionary. Well the point is actually to demonstrate how acting like the words overeating and gluttony are the same is disingenuous. The word overeating matches what you are saying, but the word gluttony has a connotation of habitual greed and excessive hedonism, and typically refers to a character attribute, rather than an act of consumption. Overeating a few times a year at holiday meals doesn't make you a gluttonous person, it makes you someone who indulges occasio…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 08:09 PM
1

Yes a fecal transplant in that case would cause you to no longer be overeating, even though you are eating the same quanity and hadn't changed otherwise. So, given that overeating and gluttony are the same thing, then a fecal transplant can cure someone of gluttony or, alternatively, if you see weight gain as being a problem of not exercising enough, a fecal transplant can cure someone of sloth. In that case - if sloth or gluttony can be cured with a pill full of poop - why is it reasonable to d…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 07:43 PM
0

You can choose to be fat or not, no matter how hard it is for you to do so, and if you choose to be fat, you are consuming more than you need to, thus making you a glutton. So, if I am thin one year, I am not a glutton, but if my gut biome changes and I continue to eat the same amount, and thus I put on weight, now I am a glutton, even though my behavior hasn't changed? What about the other way around - if I'm obese, and I get a fecal transplant, and I lose a bunch of weight without changing my …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 07:10 PM
3

What you present seems to mostly be dating advice - it's about how to act/respond in a relationship with a woman who, ostensibly is at least minimally attracted to you or interested in dating you. It doesn't address what to do to actually generate that interest or attraction in the first place. The "traditional" wisdom in that area tends to be associated with toxic masculinity - be an alpha male, do things that demonstrate you are macho, do things that demonstrate social dominance - these are th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 06:56 PM
0

Okay, that's a perfectly valid frame to operate in, but it also means that the statement So her calories out changed, she needs to eat less or exercise more, what of it? should be expanded to include "or poop out more calories," should it not? So between two people who eat the same amount and exercise the same amount, but one is fat and one thin because the thin one has a less efficient GI tract, is the fat one lazier or more of a glutton than the thin one just because the thin one poops out a g…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 06:31 PM
-1

The laws of thermodynamics are sound and if you can prove otherwise I suggest you do so as a nobel fucking prize awaits you. I hate seeing this bullshit oversimplification with regards to metabolism/weight management. It's equivalent to suggesting that all you need to know, in order to understand how a modern combustion engine works, is the Carnot cycle. Do you know that two people could eat exactly the same food and absorb different amounts of calories from it, depending on their gut biome as w…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 06:19 PM
0

Unless her calories in changed without the physical amount of food she consumed changing. Perhaps the introduction of her overweight daughter's gut bacteria changed the environment of her GI tract in such a way that her body was able to absorb calories that were previously passing through her GI tract without being absorbed. Or perhaps her own gut bacteria were decreasing the bio-availability of calories in some food products, and that effect was removed when those bacteria were replaced with he…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 06:05 PM
0

If you stay on the couch all day, because you are feeling fatigued, because you have mononucleosis, are you lazy, or just being understandably effected by the mono? If you eat a bucket of KFC, because you are feeling way hungrier than you otherwise would, due to bacteria in your GI tract causing a significant increase in Ghrelin production, are you a glutton, or just being understandably effected by the gut bacteria?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 05:09 PM
3

I think the way that people get from what feminism says to the idea that it provides this "model" that isn't effective for actually finding a romantic partner, is that it takes a lot of aggressive, traditionally male pursuit strategies and explicitly says, "these are wrong/sexist," without ever explicitly offering alternative pursuit strategies. This message, that most forms of active pursuit of a romantic relationship with a woman should be avoided, as they are harmful according to the tenets o…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/02/15 04:44 PM
1

no one thinks they have free time. come on. People working 2 jobs, or one job and being a single parent, or working a full time job and going to school, often do not have significant free time. you don't need to run to lose weight. do body exercises indoors. This is a valid point, but only a counterargument to one of a plethora of contributing factors. cheap, healthy food isn't always delicious. salad/eggs/etc are cheap. you can't lose weight and be a glutton. Food. Deserts. For a whole lot of p…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 10:05 PM
1

most people can lose weight. something like 98% don't have that crippling thyroid disorder. I've already noted that a combination of factors that are often associated with being poor can add up to make weight loss as difficult/painful as it is for those with hypothyroidism so, among those of low socioeconomic class, there are plenty of people for whom significant weight loss and significant cosmetic surgery are equally unattainable.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 09:31 PM
0

Certainly not in every case - but there are enough cases where the difficulty of someone losing weight is comparable that saying "I can't do jack shit about my height, so it's shitty to debase me about it, but that fat cow can lose weight no problem," without having any idea what her situation is, is massively hypocritical.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:51 PM
0

Just Google "height surgery," ya doofus. If you think that it's impossible to gain height, then that's just willful ignorance on your own part, presumably so you can continue to see yourself as some sort of victim of unfavorable genetics.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:18 PM
1

Then what is the point - because the point you seemed to be making was that losing weight is always possible but gaining height is impossible, which it's not, as evidenced by the link I responded with.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:56 PM
1

Well, I didn't feel like listing every possible factor that can increase the difficulty or unpleasantness associated with weight loss, so I just went with the most direct/obvious one to illustrate the point. Mental health issues, access to healthy food, free time to exercise, a safe area to exercise depending on where someone lives - all of those factors and more can contribute significantly to making it extremely painful/difficult to lose weight, and all of them also tend to correlate to low so…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 07:18 PM
1

I'm not sure what you are arguing here - I'm just saying that, if you take the route of formulating an argument about the feasibility/difficulty of weight loss based on thermodynamic equilibrium, you are removing all the emotional, psychological, and socioeconomic components from the equation, and you therefor need to do the same for the equivalent argument about the feasibility/difficulty of height gain, which leads to a set of arguments that makes the two endeavors roughly equally feasible.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:58 PM
2

It's also worth noting that the attractiveness values they are using are an average, which can mask some interesting trends. For instance, I don't recall where I read it, but I believe that there is more variance in the attractiveness that different women will assign to a particular man than the other way around - e.g. a woman with an average rating of 7/10 from a sample of guys is likely getting mostly 6s, 7s, and 8s, with a few outlying 4s, 5s, 9s, and 10s, while a man with an average rating o…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:42 PM
1

Sure there is! Is it painful and expensive? Yeah, it is, but so is lap band surgery and/or feeling like you are starving yourself for the rest of your life just to keep weight off if you have a sufficiently fucked up basal metabolic rate.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:17 PM
1

If you want to reduce it to an absolute statement of whether or not a person can lose weight, based on purely thermodynamic considerations, regardless of the cost or suffering involved, then you have to do the same for increasing height - it can be done, the procedure is just expensive and painful and takes months. The thing about height lengthening is that, once it's done, it's done. If your metabolism is such that, in order to lose significant weight, you have to basically feel like you are st…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 06:14 PM
6

In the exact same way Nazis of old are every bit as responsible for atrocity as their leadership was Hmmm. I mean, as far as I know, there's not really a provably right way to assign relative responsibility along a chain of command, so you have every right to see it that way but, personally, I think Hitler should be held significantly more responsible for the atrocities of the Holocaust than the rank and file of Nazi Germany.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 06:29 PM
1

I would tend to agree, though I don't know, historically speaking, what proportion of combatants were enlisted vs conscripted in most wars. Following the logic that any woman is a victim of a war if she suffers due to losing a man who is a casualty of that war, whereas the male casualties themselves are only victims if they are conscripted, you could make a not entirely illogical argument that women are the primary victims of any war in which the vast majority of the casualties were enlisted rat…
/r/MensRights15/08/14 12:58 AM
-2

Okay, so this is more devil's advocacy/pedantry than an argument presented in earnest, but it does seem to me like there is an argument to be made that someone who voluntarily enlists in the military, receives training, benefits, pay, etc, and then is unlucky enough to be one of the casualties of war doesn't really qualify for the label of "victim". If we pay two men to fight and the loser suffers a concussion, we don't consider him a "victim," because he was a willing participant who voluntaril…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 10:55 PM
1

If it had been said in a joking tone I may agree, but it wasn't. I largely agree, and make no mistake, I do think it was a rather inappropriate thing for the first lady to say - and "joke" may not have been the best word-choice on my part. My argument wasn't really meant to be about whether or not the statement was appropriate, but about whether or not it's reasonable and/or justified that it provokes less ire from the public than the opposing statement would. Either statement is ignorant and il…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 10:10 PM
-7

No, it's not the same thing because of the historical context, which is what I explained, I feel, in a fashion that should have been entirely clear. I'm not saying that making the joke in the first place is 100% okay, I'm saying that women have a perfectly legitimate historical reason to feel way more bothered by the public statement that "Men are smarter than women" than men do to be bothered by the public statement that "Women are smarter than men". Men's discomfort, on the other hand, is not …
/r/MensRights06/08/14 08:52 PM
-10

It mostly comes down to historical context. Up until relatively recently, the statement "Men are smarter than women," if made by a public figure, would be accepted, not as ribbing on men or as a joke, but as a simple statement of fact, by a very significant portion of the population, arguably the majority. The statement "Women are smarter than men," on the other hand, has never been, and still isn't, something that would be accepted as a statement of simple fact by a significant portion of the p…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 07:38 PM
1

Where did he assume that? It kinda sounds like she was the sole caregiver, and if this was the case for a man That much, at least, sounds like he is assuming single fatherhood. Did you get tripped up by the usage of "non-custodial"? If so, that's referring to the father not being held in custody (i.e. jail) as part of his sentence, not the custodial status of the parent.
/r/MensRights25/07/14 09:39 PM
23

If someone assaults you, you can hit them. I think this makes it not wrong, as she said, whereas if you felt it was justified to say: If someone assaults you, you should hit them. that would make it "right" to do so. Obviously, you are justified in responding to physical violence with physical violence to defend yourself, but I think that you almost never have a moral imperative to commit violence, which is the only time I think it would be right to do so, as opposed to simply not wrong.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 06:18 PM
10

The actions of a minor, and the consequences of those actions, are the responsibility of the minor's legal guardian(s). This set of actions, regardless of who it was perpetrated by, caused enough harm and was an egregious enough violation of moral conduct that a jury decided it was legally/morally justified to impose a certain amount of punitive damages. If the individual who those damages are levied against is not of sufficient moral or legal standing at the time of the ruling, then those damag…
/r/MensRights18/11/13 07:35 PM
2

I can see it being interpreted either way, so I see where you are coming from, but what would you have put instead as the second half of the last bit? Just curious, because I can't come up with anything better.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 03:22 AM
5

Instead, your totally uneventful presence should reinforce the lesson that there is absolutely nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of men. We're not all muggers and rapists, and we shouldn't be viewed as such. While that's not incorrect, it's not actually what's being weighed when a woman's instincts or what have you make her nervous in this situation. Rather, what's being weighed is the cost of vigilance vs the potential cost of being comfortable/unaware. Take this silly theoretical …
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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