TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Nodbugger Archive

View 2 posts and 169 comments by Nodbugger 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)
1

It happens all of the time. But yes, I know people will react differently. But that should not change how you react.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 11:35 AM
1

Except abuse isn't just abuse, there are always other circumstances which makes things different. And as stated, when a person is physically larger and can physically stop the abuse coming at them, people will be less likely to intervene on their behalf. It is that damn simple, yet you sit here and are too fucking stupid to understand such a simple concept and then make up shit about hypothetical situations that didn't happen.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 03:31 AM
1

And as stated, when you can physically end the abuse, people aren't going to come to your assistance. He could have stopped the abuse in this instance, he didn't. She could not have stopped him. That is why there is a massive difference between the situation. He could have stopped her, she could not have stopped him. That is why people stepped in for her and did not step in for him. I don't know why this is so difficult for all of you to understand.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:19 AM
1

Sure, but a 250lb person can kill you with a single punch, a 90lb woman is incredibly unlikely to do that. And I would be able to restrain a 90lb woman, I'd have a hell of a time restraining a 250lb man.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 01:11 AM
1

She wasn't clearly able to do it, he was backing off and you have to remember, they were acting. And yes, it explains why people were launching, because she wasn't doing anything to him, she wasn't hurting him, she wasn't taking him down, he wasn't afraid.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:32 AM
1

Except nothing you said is true at all. Take the crime of assault, it requires not only the threat of violence, but the actual capability to do it. If a person lacks the physical ability seriously injure another person with their attacks, they aren't a threat and they don't warrant the level of retaliation someone who is physically capable warrants. For instance, if a 90lb woman starts punching me, I wouldn't be justified in killing her, but if a trained MMA fighter starts punching me, I could b…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 12:30 AM
-1

Everyone is laughing because she isn't doing anything to him. She isn't hurting him, she isn't going to take him down, she isn't going to win. She is weaker, he is stronger and it is funny watching someone go at something they are never going to tackle. It is like when a little kid play fights you, are you going to jack them in the face? No, they are hitting you with all their might, but not doing anything. That is why you don't hit them. They aren't hurting you. That is why people are laughing,…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:35 PM
-5

And if you are choosing to do that then you better damn well be prepared to sustain some amount of injury. And why do you think you aren't going to hit a woman back? Because they are very likely going to be weaker than you right? You will more than likely be able to win against them with little to no trouble right? That is why this video doesn't work well.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:50 PM
-3

So you're saying it's your fault that someone is abusing you for no good reason? And it's also your fault if you don't want to retaliate back because you don't believe in violence? But it's not the fault of the person who is actually initiating the violence? If you refuse to defend yourself and expect others to do it for you, yes, what you are doing is a problem. Which is exactly what this video is trying to show, and what you stupid fucks are jerking each other off over. When the man is abusing…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:39 PM
-10

No, but that is entirely irrelevant, the stronger person should be able to manage it. You can watch the damn video, when the man fights here he is clearly overwhelming her, when she fights him, it is like an older brother teasing his sister.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:26 PM
-7

Then that person is an idiot and part of their philosphy requires them to be abused. You don't get to apose violence and then expect others to commit it on your behalf.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 12:24 PM
-24

But one may require assistance, while the other may not.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:59 AM
-36

Both are wrong, but there is a simple reason why people don't help. A man is physically stronger and should be able to handle himself. If I saw a gay couple fighting and one was significantly larger than the other, I'd only step in if the big guy was doing the hitting. edit: Now I remember why I unsubbed from this shithole. You stupid fucks are worse than feminists.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 02:14 AM
-7

Well, this sub reddit has turned to cop hating bullshit just like the rest of reddit, Pitiful.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 05:24 AM
-5

People are hiding facts because they don't think, they just respond emotionally.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 03:13 AM
1

I wish more people realized this. This link is posted in /r/news and people keep mentioning the 'rape culture' of the military. It doesn't exist. I have seen one instance of a female claiming she was raped and it turned out she was just trying to get back at some guy who told everyone she was involved with group sex with 4 males, which was true because a video of the incident turned up.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 04:17 AM
1

I don't care about nudity either way, we all know what each other has, it isn't a big deal. My problem is when people try to redefine basic biological principles just to protect feelings.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 04:08 PM
-2

If the teacher documented a consistent pattern with this kid and there is no other record of her acting unfairly toward other male students, discipline her for acting like that in front of the class. Stop being perpetually offended and learn to read. If this is the only kid in the class she acted this way toward, maybe it is the damn kid that is the problem in the equation. And don't act like telling a bad kid that they are bad is equal to being a child abuser. Believe it or not, protecting kids…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:21 PM
2

Then what does this have to do with men's rights? Are the people here turning into feminists that take any slight against a male as being sexist? That is ridiculous. If you are basing your argument on emotion and feelings over facts, logic, and rational thought you are being just as bad as the people you are supposedly in opposition to.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:18 PM
2

Well, was the kid being an insufferable little shit? Parents are way more to blame for bad kids than bad teachers are. Kids are given their special little snowflake status, parents won't discipline them and teachers can't. If the teacher documented a consistent pattern with this kid and there is no other record of her acting unfairly toward other male students, discipline her for acting like that in front of the class. But don't act like it is some sexist issue.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:54 PM
1

Except none of that is comparable. For those people who you describe, ED, hysterectomy, it is because something went wrong, that part of their body did function and should exist, but because of either a medical necessity or medical issue they no longer do. The same with people who have a mixture of organs, typically, one set is fully functioning, while other isn't, they might not even know they have it. One side is always more dominant than the other. The caricature of a hermaphrodite only exist…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:10 AM
-2

Yes, actually all of those are what determines if an organism is male or female. I don't know why the NWOslave is being down voted. Any change someone makes is artificial. We aren't certain species of fish, our bodies don't develop and mature in a way to change. A male will not be able to perform biologically as a female and a female will not be able to perform biologically as a male. The problem that currently exists, and it is the same with homosexuality and bisexuality and heterosexuality, is…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 04:11 AM
3

Unfortunately too many people on Reddit don't care about reality. They would prefer to 'feel' good over actually being good. Look at my comment Here Apparently asking for standards is completely unreasonable. But hey, I'm going to go throw on a dress and hang out in the girls locker room.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:19 PM
-6

I don't like the idea of someone just being able to choose what they are. There really isn't a standard. Does someone have to be full blown post operation? Can a male just throw on a dress say he is a girl and call it a day? Or does it even need to be that far? Can I just say I think I should be a female, never do anything about, and be considered one? This looks like another empty headed approach at being progressive without any real thought put into it. Edit: Apparently people would rather put…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 10:23 PM
1

You said that you aren't part of the group, which means you are being offended on behalf of someone else that you don't even know if they exist. It is that self righteous bullshit that ruins legitimate complaints and dialouge.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:43 PM
1

Since I am neither I get screwed. It is a sauna. No one is getting screwed because their sauna is coed. And no, no one needs to speak for them, they can speak for themselves, if they exist. If they did, maybe the situation could change? There is no need to artificially inflate an issue.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 06:17 PM
1

And you are still not allowing for the possibility that your view on this issue is in the minority. It doesn't take a huge double blind study to determine women have more body issues than men. No matter how much people want to pretend, men and women are different, both mentally and physically. And while you will always have the outlier on the bell curve, in this instance, it just isn't that big of a problem for anyone to do anything about it. And I, personally, do you think you have a problem, j…
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:52 PM
-1

It may take strength, but considering it is a private business, run on private property, it also takes a bit of totalitarianism and some stupidity to do it in this situation. His business doesn't exist to serve you. No one exists to serve you or kneel to yours or anyone else's sensibilities. That is all it comes down to, it doesn't matter how much you dislike it or how uncomfortable you are with it. Freedom trumps it every time.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:21 PM
1

But isn't is a sign of weakness to not exit your comfort zone? And I'm not saying it isn't an unreasonable weakness, but still one nonetheless?
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:42 PM
0

Well, it would depend how most men react. I would have to guess most men don't care. Which means it could be you and a small segment of men. And that depends entirely on the country you are in as well. In Germany it would be uncommon to find a split sauna and everyone will be nude in it.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 08:46 AM
-2

Then don't go to that gym or get enough paying customers to make the recommendation so they change it. But it has nothing to do with sexism.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 07:00 AM
6

Maybe enough women complained to have that, but it isn't an issue that bothers most men and none have complained? So to please their paying customers, they made it that way. I don't see the issue. My business doesn't exist to serve the sensibilities of people who aren't paying me.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 05:47 AM
4

They really need to separate friends from acquaintances and come up with a standard definition for each. My experience from the women I know, they will call someone who they just met at the bar 20 minutes ago their 'friend' and say they know them, and then when the rape statistics are pointed out they comment that a lot of rapes are committed by people the person knows, insinuating that friends they have had for years one day decided to rape them, when in actuality it is their bother's friend's …
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:24 PM
10

Someone thinking emotionally is not thinking at all.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:21 PM
1

Great article on the subject I post every time this comes up. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1192/article_detail.asp
/r/MensRights12/02/13 05:34 PM
1

Simple, The Department of Defense is an extension of the Executive branch. Selective Service is a power of Congress. They can be, and quite likely are, completely separate. Not to mention a Defense Secretary hasn't had to deal with that in 40ish years.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 03:41 AM
0

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1192/article_detail.asp
/r/MensRights10/01/13 02:18 AM
1

I can't understand the thought process behind these people. "Someone is happy with something I hate?!? How dare they!"
/r/MensRights23/12/12 03:04 PM
-11

As a cut guy I don't care that I was circumcised. I don't remember it, it looks good to me and it works great.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 12:31 AM
1

Yes I am. That law in no way binds the UK to follow the decisions of the court. It merely allows UK courts to enforce rules set by the original treaty. The fact that you have to point out that the UK had to pass a law saying they could follow the rules, proves my point exactly. Being a member of the court does not obligate that member to abide by their decisions. They have no legal or Democratic authority in any country. Period.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 05:24 PM
1

And this is why we have a court system to determine these things. There are several court rulings that have decided that the Ignorance of the law defense is acceptable in instances where intricate, complex, or obscure laws are in place. This instance isn't intricate or obscure nor is it complicated. It is also something almost everyone is aware of. There may be specifics that need to be explained, but the overall gyst and concept of statutory rape isn't something someone can claim a valid ignora…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 04:29 PM
3

And how many of them impose legal obligations on the average person and have criminal penalties associated with them? Just because it is law, doesn't mean it makes anything legal or illegal. It is a law that made Labor day a Federal Holiday, but that doesn't mean you are going to jail if you don't celebrate it.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 12:39 PM
0

I never said anyone in the military did anything wrong. I said his evidence is merely circumstantial or anecdotal at best and his allegations, if true, are still dishonest. He, nor anyone else, has any hard evidence of what happened. Remember, he is the prosecution. The CIA is the defense. All they have to do is cast reasonable doubt. And as I've stated, the evidence he has presented could just as easily be shown to say he went to Afghanistan to fight.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 12:21 PM
1

You are outright lying No I'm not. here The ECHR is binding on all the members of the Council of Europe. No it isn't. Here in the UK, for instance, it's given force in national law via the Human Rights Act of 1998. No it isn't. It doesn't enforce its ruling. It merely enforces its rights declarations. Nothing the court says or does can force any nation to do anything. In fact your own Prime Minister has said so himself. The fact is, no government has accepted its legitimacy as a court to overrul…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 12:18 PM
-2

I'm not talking about the Young Turks, I'm talking about the case as a whole. The Court may be recognized, but no state has ever allowed any of its rulings to change their law or any policy. Judge Judy has more authority than they do. But as I said, there was no defendant. No one to present evidence, no one to say otherwise. The only thing you have is one mans claim as to what happened. That would never stand in any legitimate court. Everything in the article is circumstantial. Everything that h…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 05:15 AM
3

So can children.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 06:45 PM
-11

Assuming this happened at all. I would seriously doubt that the CIA would do all of this to someone for months and then just let them go. Not to mention this court has given more than a few dubious rulings and has absolutely no authority, countries in Europe don't even recognize its authority. Never mind the fact that it wasn't exactly a fair trial. Not even sure what this has to do with men's rights, other than the CIA agents that weren't given a fair trial. But don't let facts get in the way o…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 06:42 PM
2

He wants drones and the Pakistani military wants drones. And their military is conducting operations in the same area already. In fact I wouldn't doubt that we give them targets. From your article Just like Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar before him, Malik also mentioned that Pakistan had no objection to using drones against militants, but that it is the method by which the strikes are made the country disagrees with. He obviously just wants the glory for getting rid of the militant…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:56 AM
8

I saw that it was a video link and thought "Holy fuck someone filmed that?!?"
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:33 AM
2

Al-Qaeda makes those claims. http://www.airra.org/newsandanalysis/AnalysisDroneattackschallengingsomefabrications.php http://www.airra.org/newsandanalysis/droneattacksurvey.php
/r/MensRights16/12/12 03:32 AM
1

That may be the GI Bill, but there are a few other Federal programs and then of course most states have programs as well. But with the increase in the number of veterans as well as the amount going to college, especially with the draw downs, money for these programs is very tight right now and it will only get worse.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 01:48 AM
10

Some military education benefits are only given to a certain number of people each year. When someone fails, they are wasting money that could have gone to someone else. Not to mention the stigma. Schools that constantly have veterans failing are less likely to want to admit veterans or start programs to help veterans. The same with potential employers. There are tons of resources out there for Veterans so they don't fail. There are tons of laws and organisations out there that deal specifically…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:56 PM
16

First thing is first, you shouldn't have failed. You are screwing over your fellow Veterans by doing that shit. (Me being one of them) Second, contact your local National Guard Armory, they may be able to give you a cot or at least get you in contact with someone to get all of the information you need.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:01 PM
0

The only people who could enlist after January 1943 were people not eligible for the draft. False.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:56 PM
0

I do know history and that is absolutely false.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:12 PM
0

I'm not denying that point, but that wasn't his point. But as I've said, there are differences in the opinions of the population to war and military service. Protests, drug and music culture of the time. There are tons of factors that come into play. But is still doesn't change that most people who fought in WW2 were drafted and most who fought in Vietnam volunteered.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:00 PM
0

I don't ignore them, they aren't relevant. The numbers needed to fight the wars were much different. There were 2.8 million Vietnam veterans and 16 million WW2 veterans. Not to mention a much different change in attitude of the people.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:32 PM
9

Technically she isn't a spouse. Since the Federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriages she cannot receive any spousal benefits nor can she get a military ID. Because she isn't in the DEERs system and doesn't have an ID she does not have access to any military bases, PX/BX, or the commissary. She has no survivor benefits, no insurance, and she can't live in military housing or go with her wife on any accompanied tours. To this club and the military, her legal status is nothing more tha…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:20 PM
3

Did you bother telling her anything or asking why she did it?
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:11 PM
-1

If anything, being a teacher at Stanford for 40 years makes me even less inclined to listen to a damn word he says. Academics of his type are notoriously stupid. They have no sense of reality, only what their sheltered life being a teacher has shown them. They have no real world experience. Bill Ayers is a teacher at the University of Illinois in Chicago. But I doubt either of us would agree with even 1% of the bullshit he says. The books are wrong. Those guys are wrong. You are wrong.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:13 AM
0

And yet I posted a Wikipedia article which states, and with no amount of interpretation as to their intentions, that you are completely wrong. Ain't that some shit.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:50 AM
0

And yet you are still blatantly retarded. You have no clue what you are talking about ever. Every time you reply to me about something you are absolutely wrong about it. No person who has studied any amount of American history between 1935 and 1945 could ever through any stretch of the imagination classify the United States as imperialistic. In fact history tells us the United States was the EXACT opposite. In fact, here is a Wikipedia Article detailing exactly why you are wrong, again. http://e…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:35 AM
2

Once again, clearly retarded.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:26 AM
-1

You are clearly retarded.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:25 AM
-1

What part of yes, some of it was, and it was still the land of our closest allies are you not understanding?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:21 PM
0

Yes, because everything happening in the Pacific and African theaters didn't matter (Hint they started in 1941/42, more than two years before D-day) Look up the Aleutian Islands Campaign. And when you are defending allies, it isn't offensive.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:07 PM
0

Your point doesn't stand at all. WW2 is universally thought of as a 'good' war to help and save people, yet 66% of the people there needed to be drafted. Where has Vietnam is universally seen as a 'bad' war and 80% of the people volunteered. It is completely contrary to your point.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:40 PM
0

Tell that to the 66% of WW2 Veterans that were drafted compared to the 80% of Vietnam Veterans who volunteered.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 07:48 PM
1

Read this http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1192/article_detail.asp
/r/MensRights11/12/12 12:49 AM
2

I up voted all your posts, I hate when people go through and down vote like that.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:33 AM
7

Whine about perceived inequality and pursue irrational things instead of looking for real inequality and doing things that will actually fix it, not simply make them feel better.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 06:52 PM
6

Accommodation validates their actions. It is like giving into children or dogs. It just promotes the behavior if they know they can act like that and get what they want.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 05:44 PM
11

It doesn't matter. Men/Man when capitalized refers to humanity, regardless of gender. And when it comes down to it, there sign is accurate. Men are working. It is a field heavily dominated by men. If they want equality, more women should work in those fields. Especially one as labor intensive and dangerous as construction work. If I worked in a female dominated work place I would not be offended if that workplace catered to females. It makes sense that they would cater more to females. The chang…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 05:01 PM
12

The point being that the sign doesn't matter. As long as people know to slow down because there is construction, the sign is serving its purpose.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 04:31 PM
6

You also have to remember that these aren't just regular Marines. They are officers, expected to be leaders. No matter how it should be or not, Infantrymen are going to have a hard time being lead by a female they know can't do what they can do. Even males who pass this course are still not going to be afforded much, if any, respect because of it. As a Scout Platoon Leader in the Army, I have to work twice as hard as anyone in my platoon to even be considered worth the seat I take in my vehicle.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:04 AM
7

That is because most people don't understand the requirements needed for the military. They just think it is easy stuff stupid people do and call it a day. I've had friends think that until I hand them my IBA with plates in it and have them put it on. They complain about how heavy it is and then I remind them they don't have equipment hanging off of it or another 20 pounds of ammo. They don't have the uniform on, nor the helmet and they aren't carrying a rifle. Then I hand them my ruck with a fu…
/r/MensRights04/12/12 06:36 PM
1

That seems to be the mantra here. Look it up! We don't need to provide evidence! We just say we are right and expect you to do the research! Well guess what, every credible source I have found says you are wrong. On both counts.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 01:48 PM
1

It isn't a logical fallacy if the person of authority has legitimate expertise in that field and the experts in that field have a general consensus.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 04:13 PM
0

Yes, my evidence is 60,000 pediatric doctors and thousands of studies on the subject. Your argument is based on a video from comedians and emotions, not fact.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:12 PM
0

And do you have evidence of these claims? Because if if they do mean unprotected. What does that matter? Are the claims false? Do you know their methodology? You are making unsubstantiated claims based upon nothing except your uninformed opinion. And yes I did mean retort. Say something in answer to a remark or accusation, typically in a sharp, angry, or wittily incisive manner. Penn and Teller would be considered a retort.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 09:16 PM
-1

By who and where?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 06:17 PM
-1

I'm an idiot? I'm not the one ignoring a medical study from the largest pediatric organization in the United States.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:33 PM
0

Your retort is a video from comedians that is older than a medical study done by the largest group of pediatric doctors in the United States? Really?
/r/MensRights29/11/12 03:32 PM
-14

This has little to do with circumcision and much more to do with a substandard hospital. I can see no one here is going to argue with logic and instead respond with emotion, I am going to delete my comments because of how pointless the discussion will be. Here is an article I found right away. They found that the procedure had preventive benefits, including a major risk reduction for male urinary tract infections - especially during the first year of life - and a lower risk of cancer, and hetero…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 11:07 PM
6

You don't have Spas, saunas, or nude beaches? I thought Sweden was pretty lax with nudity.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 06:30 PM
13

What country are you in or from? In places like Germany, it isn't uncommon for there to be unisex locker rooms or places where men and women are naked together. I had a friend do a semester in Sweden, his dorm shower was an open unisex shower. Lets just say his first shower was interesting, but he got used to it.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 05:53 PM
1

Yes, that is in fact neutral. Just because men are mostly the ones fighting wars, doesn't mean war is sexist in anyway. Men just happen to be better at it. You are pulling what feminists do, trying to say certain jobs are sexist because they are male dominated. And I don't care about gender politics, it is a pseudo-science. It means nothing. All identity politics is pitiful and the people who partake in them are negative for society.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:00 PM
1

Politicians exist to be diplomatic, if diplomacy has failed, politicians have failed. As I said, it may be an extension of politics, but it is not merely a matter of politics. And I am still unsure of what the purpose in your statements is. War is pretty gender neutral.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 06:54 PM
1

War is the failure of politics. It can't be cheapened to a matter of politics. It may have the same goals and it may be a continuation of the political process, but it isn't simply a political issue. And it certainly isn't a gender issue. It is made into a gender issue, when it isn't. As with my first statement, men are better at war. Not simply because they are men, but because of the biological differences present between men and women. Making it anything other than that is whiny self righteou…
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:57 AM
1

I have no idea what that even means. War isn't a male issue nor is it a political issue.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:41 AM
0

And once again, go fuck yourself. Making someone angry doesn't make you win the argument. It makes you a fucking idiot. You ignore factual information and make up arguments. You are a 12 year old kid on X-Box live calling people faggots who then becomes proud of himself when people get pissed off.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:42 PM
0

Grow up you piece of shit.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:32 PM
0

Racism is based on what is perceived or something incorrect, if there was a valid scientific biological difference between races it wouldn't be racism to identify that difference. For instance, if a certain race of people was all color blind, it wouldn't be racist to exclude them from position where they are required to see colors. They aren't excluded because of their race, they are excluded because of their inability to see color. It is the same with male/female. They aren't excluded simply be…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:25 PM
0

And that is an idiotic definition of sexism. It should be applied just like racism. Where a group is believed to be superior or lesser than others because of incorrect assumptions based solely upon their race. It is proven scientific fact that there are biological differences between men and woman. There are things men are better than women at, there are things women are better than men at. Trying to argue that identifying the strengths and weaknesses as sexism is just pure idiocy. That sounds l…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:10 PM
0

And your argument is pointless. It is like being angry that sickle-cell anemia affects blacks way more often than whites. Well it isn't because sickle-cell is racist and hates black people. It is because of malaria and where their ancestors evolved and it becomes part of the biology. It is the same with men. War doesn't disproportionately affect men because of some type of sexism, and it because men are biologically better for it. So yes, it is an us versus them for you. If women were killed in …
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:57 PM
1

Well considering I'm a soldier in a combat arms job that has been to war, yes I kind of have expertise in this field. And because of this expertise I know that someone else who shares this expertise and this experience, would never agree with your statement.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:03 AM
1

If you have, you wouldn't say what you did.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:41 AM
1

Have you ever been in the military? Have you been in a combat position? Have you fought in a war? No?
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:16 AM
-2

Females serve in the military and they are killed during that service as well. They just don't serve in the most combat oriented positions because of their physical limitations. If not being able to serve in a combat capacity limits someones ability to serve in a public office, the next logical leap would for it to be a requirement for people seeking public office to have served in the military.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 10:43 PM
1

If we continue to follow that logic, it should be a requirement to serve in the military before taking a public office.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 09:24 PM
0

It harms males disproportionately because the male body is more apt for war. So the male body goes to war. It is like a feminist being upset that men don't die from complications during child birth. Well, men can't give birth. So of course only women are going to die in that situation. It is the same with war. Sure, some women can go to war and some do well. But the fact still remains that males are biologically superior to women when it comes to war. War isn't fair. There is no room for it. You…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 03:40 PM
-3

No, soldiers are treated as being disposable and faceless. The reason they don't say men, is that they are soldiers. If the news said only said men, no one would be sure who was killed. When it says soldier, they know exactly who was killed. Same with police or firefighter. There is no reason to announce that they are men. And reason it is mentioned when they are female, is because it is unusual. It is not that common for a female soldier to be killed or injured. There are not many females in an…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 06:23 AM
0

I know this won't be popular here, but here it goes. The male body is better for war. Deal with it. With that being said. I'm male and I'm in the Army. I've been to war.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 04:51 AM
2

It is even more awkward when your roommate's girlfriend hops into the shower thinking it is your roommate in there.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 03:51 PM
-2

So there's no such thing as genital mutilation in the world? You are attempting to define something based upon your own personal opinions and not facts. The act of mutilation is entirely dependent on the opinions of the person they are being done to, I have said this many times so far. I cannot positively say there is any mutilation in either of those photos. I don't know what has happened, I don't have any context and I don't know how the people in those pictures view what is going on. They are…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:39 AM
-2

I really don't care what the World Health Organization has to say. You are attempting compare two different things. Female Circumcision is not equal to male circumcision. They are on a completely different scale. But as I have said many times, mutilation is dependent on the persons perception of it. I don't think those people would consider themselves to be mutilated and I doubt they would be happy with you calling them mutilated. They like their change, to them it is an improvement, that is inc…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 05:08 AM
-2

You are attempting to compare two different things. That isn't my Vagina, I have cannot determine if it is mutilated or not. Is this guy mutliated? What about this guy? Her? What about this woman? Her also? ? I could go all fucking day with this. If it isn't your body you have no fucking say in the matter as to what is and what isn't mutilation.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:38 AM
-2

For the most part, yes. The majority of it relies on a subjective opinion on if it is mutilation or not. For instance. http://www.arizonafoothillsmagazine.com/afm-style-files/wp-content/uploads/JocelynWildensteinBad-Rhinoplasty.jpg This woman probably thinks she is beautiful. I however think her face is a disaster. Who is correct? Well it is her face and if she believes her changes are an improvement, well that is what they are. My opinion serves no relevance as it is not my face. You also have …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:23 AM
-2

The first article, the percentages supplied are well within a normal margin of error. The second is the one I was talking about, 300 is not a big enough survey and a lot of methods are just odd. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130485/ So women that have had all of their external genitalia removed are, according to you, not mutilated, since most of them will defend the practice and even pass it on to their daughters? If they prefer the change then no, it is not mutilation. Mutilation…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:41 AM
-2

Circumcised men experience erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation more often than intact men do. You state that as if it were fact, it isn't. The study you cite was a small sampling based upon self reporting. It wasn't scientific. Range of movement of a penis? Yes, loss of some sensitivity can in fact be a good thing, it could cure pre-mature ejaculation. Does this also apply to female circumcision? If the female prefers it, then yes. or the third time, essential here doesn't mean necess…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:49 AM
-4

The foreskin contains the most fine-touch sensitive parts of the penis as well as the frenulum which is the most densely innervated and erogenous structure in the male genitals. Circumcision also destroys the optimal mechanical function of the penis and exposes the fragile mucosa of the glans to friction and dehydration. The circumcised penis is mechanically, sensorially and structurally degraded. Which many would argue would cause an increase in function as sexual stimulus is now longer and the…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:57 AM
-7

A circumcised penis is certainly not less functional. Personal preferences are irrelevant. Mutilation: 1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See 3.at batter1. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. Completely wrong. Foreskin is not a limb or essential part, it does not cripple the penis. It is not disfigured, many people prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis. See #2. That is exactly why the determination …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:30 AM
-5

No, that is pretty much irrelevant because a baby isn't capable of forming that opinion yet. They are not capable of making any medical decision, which is why parents are given proxy over the child because they are capable of making the decision.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:26 AM
0

Mutilation is dependent on the individuals opinion of it. The implication behind mutilation is that it degrades the appearance or function of the body part. If someone prefers their penis circumcised it is in fact, not mutilation. If you disagree me and upvote Erymil not only are you an enemy of language, you are an idiot. Amazing how stupid people really are.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 09:42 PM
3

Well are the females in this school putting graffiti in the bathrooms?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 03:18 PM
7

Is there a reasonable reason for this decision?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 02:18 PM
2

Get your kids to testify against her. Courts love kids.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 10:28 PM
0

Because of the physical requirements placed upon the people in those fields as well as the detriment mixing females and males who are put into the situations those career fields often are. I disagree. A combat unit is only able to function due to vast ammounts of support personnel. Having support roles filled by people that are otherwise suitable for combat, in a situation serious enough for the draft, is wasteful. They are marginal in that if there was a need for a draft there would any problem…
/r/MensRights02/09/12 03:15 PM
1

Women cannot be tankers or most jobs in FA along with Combat engineers. Most of those other jobs you list off are marginal, they have no problems filling those slots with anyone so filling them with females that are drafted is near pointless, those aren't the jobs that need to be filled if there was a draft. And once again, things like pilots are filled by Commissioned officers, you cannot draft someone to be a pilot. Same with things like submarines, they don't ant draftees there, the last thin…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:10 PM
1

Right, there was no rule about doing anything with only sons or bothers during WWII. So your grandpa being moved was just dumb luck and wasn't based on any regulation or legislation. And even after they enacted the regulation it only applied to certain people in certain situations and not during a time of war, only peace time drafts.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:05 AM
1

http://www.snopes.com/military/onlyson.asp
/r/MensRights01/09/12 01:29 AM
2

That brother thing is a complete myth.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:50 AM
0

Because most females cannot physically meet those standards so in the name of 'equality' they give them different standards, even though they function in most of the same career fields.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 08:17 PM
0

These are facts. The positions needed during a draft are all combat related positions. Basically the Infantry. The male standards for the APFT are as follows. 15:54 two mile run 42 Push-ups in two minutes 53 Sit-ups in two minutes. The female standards as as follows 18:54 19 53 Those male standards would result in a 180 on the APFT. A female who scored that would receive a 256. The female standards listed would result in a female scoring a 180, if a male received those same scores they would rec…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:49 PM
-1

No it doesn't, not even close.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 04:10 PM
1

It isn't discrimination when there is a logical and rational purpose behind it. War time and the military, especially when we are in such dire need of troops that we need a draft, is not a time to sit around talking about equality, discrimination and how peoples feelings are hurt because of it.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:52 PM
1

Like I said, there maybe be some, but they aren't joining the military, they are in the Olympics and opening up the whole process to a group of people who are 99% unqualified is a waste of time and resources. Most people aren't disqualified when they first join, they are disqualified during training, why waste the slot on a female who has a high chance of failure when you could put a male there with a much lower chance of failure?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:43 PM
1

You made a comment about how I am as a leader, that was a hugely personal insult and mouth breathing hive mind here down votes.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:35 PM
-1

You are confusing a small sample of Soviet women in a dire situation for reality. 800,000 women served in the Soviet Army during WW2. 9,000,000 Soviets in the military were killed, with another 13,000,000 civilians killed. When you reach numbers like that, you are pulling in people from wherever you can. This was War time, it was and is still not standard practice. And sure, there are females who do perform. SPC Monica Brown, a Medic in the 82nd, was awarded the Silver Star. But what doesn't rea…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:29 PM
0

I'm sure there are, but they aren't joining the military and opening up the field for that one person isn't inefficient and waste of time. Because as previously stated, physical factors are only one of them reasons. Every career field or school that has allowed females has lowered its standards.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:17 PM
1

Except pilots are commissioned officers, officers by the Constitution cannot be drafted, they must be volunteers and appointed to these positions.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:11 PM
1

Your assumption is based upon fairness. War isn't fair and the steps we take to prepare for it should account for that. The system is there to find the most people for the most needed positions as quickly as possible. Almost all females would be deemed unfit for the positions that need to be filled and bringing them in to test them would be a waste of time and resources.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:10 PM
1

I've explained that already. The vast majority of women cannot perform physically at that level, sure there are females that can run fast and do plenty of sit-ups or push-ups, but that is only a small part of the physical requirements. An Infantryman walks a lot, they will walk 20 miles with a 65lb ruck, a 20lb vest, 20 lbs of ammo, throw in a 27lb M240 and now you have reached the average weight of a female in the United States. How many females do you know that can carry around their entire bo…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 03:07 PM
-12

I'm a call em like I sees em kind of guy so I'm not going to hold back. You are a fucking idiot and you don't know a damn thing about me. You are just some stupid schmuck who is having the adult version of "But his cookie is bigger!" Your were born a certain sex that has large muscles, low body fat, can take a beating, can heal quicker, processes food more efficiently, less prone to injury and the list goes on. Grow the fuck up and deal with it. Fucking pussy.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:14 AM
-3

No a draft means they need men fast and can't wait for men to volunteer.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 07:08 AM
7

If the factors haven't changed why is the policy archaic?
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:57 AM
-8

And the selective service is what is in the best interest and having women apply for it is not in the best interest. And by passing laws dissuading men they are ensuring they do sign up for it because when the needs arises it is imperative that we have a system and pool in place. And unequal treatment is okay as long as it based upon reasonable and logical circumstances.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:52 AM
-4

Judging by this comment you have never served in the military in any capacity. Physical requirements are just one thing, they are the easiest to explain to civilians. Everything else you'd have to have lived in that environment to understand why females would be detrimental. I'm not saying it isn't a possibility in the future many years from now, but humanity and society would have to change considerable and with the way things are going now, they aren't many men left who can handle the military…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:49 AM
-2

Because there are plenty of people for them and if the situation arose they would more than likely join them voluntarily.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:46 AM
-5

None of that has anything to do with citizenship and the items you mentioned are not matters of citizenship. Men have that stipulation because of the importance it has. If the time came to start a draft, they would need young healthy and strong men. Adding females into the mix just isn't logical as the vast majority will be unable to perform in those roles that are being sought. I signed up for the Selective Service and then I joined the Army, for some reason my Selective Service card is still i…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:23 AM
4

There a host of reasons, they don't apply to all women. But females generally lack the physical strength, they don't form teams like men do and there are very few that can handle that environment. The Combat Arms life style is a very unforgiving one. There is no room for feelings or anything of the sort. Even the most physically fit females I know in the Army ( I will say this again I am a Cavalry Officer in the Army) are on par with some of my least physically fit male soldiers, and that is jus…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 06:13 AM
13

r·cha·ic/ärˈkāik/ Adjective: Very old or old-fashioned. (of a word or a style of language) No longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor. I don't think either of those two factors have changed.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:48 AM
-2

I'm not sure what you are asking here, benefits to what? None of those things you listed off are rights and they can put those stipulations on them as long as it is reasonable. And since there is no benefit to having females register for the selective service as they would be detrimental and incapable of serving in that capacity, it is reasonable to not have that stipulation on them. Doing something for the sole purpose of equality, especially something dealing with the military, that has no tan…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:47 AM
-1

This argument is brought up a lot and well it isn't a very good one. If a draft was reinstated we'd need Infantry. Females can't and shouldn't do that (obvious physical limitations..before you ask I am a Cavalry Officer in the Army) So even if they did have to sign up for the selective service, females would be put into jobs that most of them would go into voluntarily if we ever reached that point. So this argument either goes two ways, women are equal and have to be put in these positions, wher…
/r/MensRights31/08/12 04:56 AM
0

There is no implied contract because that isn't how an implied contract works. Have you bothered to read anything I've posted? Because you are clearly displaying that you are in fact an idiot.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 04:16 AM
1

Because it follows the same procedures of an implied contract? Once again, you are fucking retarded.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 03:29 AM
1

An election doesn't have to be a popular vote, which is what a direct election is.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 03:28 AM
0

The concept of an implied contract exists and it is a legal contract. Since sex needs to be consensual for it to not be rape, it is a contract between two persons to engage in that activity. If there is no verbal or written agreement, the act is implied. Holy fuck are you retarded.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 03:20 AM
1

Except nothing you posted says anything about a direct election or popular vote. An election doesn't mean it was done by a popular vote and by the people doesn't mean a popular vote either.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 03:16 AM
-1

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/263/188/case.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=444&invol=460 http://www.publiclawnews.com/public-blawg/2011/11/california-supreme-court-holds-counties-may-be-bound-implied-contracts-provide-
/r/MensRights20/08/12 03:15 AM
1

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html It doesn't get any clearer than that.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:35 AM
-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:33 AM
1

And yet the United States Supreme Court says there is no right for the individual to vote in any Federal election. You are absolutely wrong in both discussions. Kindly fuck off.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:30 AM
-1

You made the assertion, you are required to provide the evidence. There is no law which says what you state. There is no USC which says what you state. Liability for damages is not involuntary servitude and implied contracts are real things. There is a damn Wikipedia article you could have even read.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 02:29 AM
0

No, not unless female. Show me where in the law it says a female is voided from child support if the male has primary custody over a child. Don't worry, I'll wait. And no, you are not following the Constitution. Not even close.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:15 AM
0

Nope. None of those in any way construe that they must be chosen though a popular vote and none of them say how the person must be elected. The individual citizen has no Constitutional right to vote in any election.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 01:14 AM
0

You are obviously an extremist who doesn't care about logic. It is called liability. You are responsible for the results of your actions. Your actions produced a child, you are responsible for it. End of story.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 10:28 PM
0

Cite this requirement please. There is only one Federal office that is electable.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 10:26 PM
1

It would technically be a verbal contract or an implied contract, which are both enforceable if they can be proven. But either way you become liable for the results of your actions, it doesn't matter if you intended for it to happen or not. As for the law, it is written neutrally but isn't always applied the same. Which is a different issue entirely. But at no point are child support or alimony slavery, involuntary servitude, or a violation of the 13th Amendment and both are very valid concepts.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 09:12 PM
2

It is an informal contract. Especially when it comes to the production of a child. When you make decisions you are responsible for the outcome. It is called liability. You made a decision to have sex, it resulted in a child, you are responsible for the child. Everything else in life has liability, this one just happens to result in the creation of a human being. Crash your car? Burn your friends house down? Kill someone? You are responsible for the outcomes because of decisions you made and in a…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 08:17 PM
1

No it isn't. As I said, you entered into a contract willingly knowing the consequences and then you were ordered to make payment through a court order which enforced the terms of that contract. As long as the contract was entered into legally and under no coercion, it is a valid contract. A marriage license is exactly that and it outlines the terms when the contracted is violated. That is not in anyway the same as involuntary servitude.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 07:57 PM
2

They are not in violation of the Constitution in any way or form. By creating a child with a person you have become legally responsible for the guardianship and care of it. Even if you no longer have custody of that child, the responsibility remains and you have a legal debt that must be paid. The reason the money goes to the spouse is because the child is not legally capable of entering into a contract at their age. As for alimony, Marriage is a contract entered into upon agreement by two parti…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 07:22 PM
1

Congress has the power to raise and support armies, which is why a draft is completely legal and Constitutional since it is our government exercising one of their Constitutional powers. It is also why it is illegal to physically stop or tell people not to be drafted because you are interfering with Congresses legitimate Constitutional right to raise and support and armies. Child support and alimony are legal because they are decisions by courts ,made through the due process of law, to ensure a p…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:43 PM
4

State legislatures could do that, however Congress would have the power to do it on a National level. The Constitution grants the states the power to determine the electors and that is how we vote. Electors in a state endorse a candidate, and their names are on the ballot saying they endorse this candidate. So when Obama wins Illinois, you aren't voting for Obama, you are voting for the electors who will vote for Obama. Depending on the state, the electors are not required to stick to that decis…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:33 PM
1

But the Constitution has no bearing on how or what happens in state elections or if there even needs to be state elections. In fact, if a state amended their Constitution, they could make it to where there are no elections for any position since there is no Constitutional requirement for any position to be elected by the people.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 06:22 PM
21

There is no right to vote in the United States, for anyone. As stated in Bush v. Gore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. There is nothing in the US Constitution that says an election has to be decided by a vote of the people…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 01:50 PM
2

Honestly, I'm glad it was done as an infant. I like it, I don't remember it. I don't know what the procedure would be like now. Though I'm sure if I was uncircumcised I would be ok with that too. But either way, I wouldn't consider it mutilation.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 06:26 PM
0

I still don't call it being mutilated. Would you call tattoos, piercings, and other body modifications mutilation, what about plastic surgery? Mutilation implies damaging or removing something important. If someone likes the change, it isn't mutilation. I resent the downvote simply for saying I approve of my circumcision. Downvotes..really? You people are fucking retarded.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 01:09 PM
1

I'm circumcised. I don't consider my penis to be mutilated. Downvotes..really? You people are fucking retarded.
/r/MensRights15/06/12 03:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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