TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NotARealAtty Archive

View 0 posts and 164 comments by NotARealAtty 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

I agree, fellow white person
/r/MensRights07/08/19 05:32 PM
0

Black men also commit rape/sexual assault at a significantly higher rate per capita
/r/MensRights31/05/19 05:07 PM
6

Similarly, white supremacists are about equality of all people. Don't worry about the name, just because it refers only to whites, it about equality, just like Feminism. Can't see anything wrong with that logic.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 10:47 PM
0

The irony of this comment coming from someone defending modern feminism is both hilarious and terrifying.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 10:43 PM
2

Up means down. Look it up. Language loses its purpose if you redefine it to best suit your purposes. Maybe if you just keep repeating the mantra that feminism is about equality, it will become true. You should keep I mind that 95% of people use an actual dictionary to define words, rather than the SJW alternate definition dictionary required for your humanities classes.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 08:31 PM
7

Sounds like you just need to message the mods and ask to speak to the man in charge
/r/MensRights06/11/18 04:43 AM
13

I mean technically working on your GED at 25 could be considered a first step toward med school....
/r/MensRights26/10/18 06:14 PM
4

90% come back to life as zombies, but it still counts as a "death" since technically they turn into the walking dead. Either that, or the US is only a fraction of the total world population, but that sounds a bit far fetched.
/r/MensRights14/09/18 12:03 AM
5

But the example you responded to didn't mention any of those other inventions....Youre projecting your own feelings and bahavior onto the original comment. All he said is that white men invented those things, which is true. That dossnt take anything away from any other race or gender. You added that part in your own mind. Nobody denied anyone else's inventions, You're the one that emphasized "WHITE" as if somehow his statement about modern white male inventors wasn't true. Where in my or anyone …
/r/MensRights08/09/18 01:10 AM
23

Nobody said that at all, he just pointed out those were inventions by white men. Let's go through the list to see if his comment was accurate: Power (electricity) Edison, Tesla, Farada, Franklin Running water - vague since a stream could be "running water," so let's say modern plumbing - Alexander Cummings (Scottish) Airplanes - Wright Brothers Cars (another not clear cut one but typically attributed to) - Karl Benz Appliances (not clear cut) - let's do the main ones: vacuum - H Cecil Booth or J…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 08:26 PM
11

I didn't bother to watch that fictional movie
/r/MensRights07/09/18 06:44 PM
2

Legal definitions don't always match the general publics definition, as with any specialized field.
/r/MensRights05/09/18 06:19 PM
12

Annnnnd it's gone. Shocking
/r/MensRights20/08/18 10:35 PM
1

Ummm, if you commit perjury by making a false sworn statement its absolutely the norm that you will be charged. Perjury is a felony. And that doesn't apply simply to testimony on the witness stand, that's any sworn statement, so it could be as simple as signing a police report. This absolutely gets prosecuted for other crimes, so your defense of false accusers in this scenario is completely unfounded. The only question should be whether or not the false statement was made by someone the knowingl…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 03:53 AM
1

You're misunderstanding the definition of evidence. It's simply anything that makes the fact asserted more or less likely to have occurred. The legal rules of evidence are extremely complex in regards to what can and can't be admitted, but just becaise something is evidence doesn't mean it's good evidence. In general, it's juries job to determine what evidence is and isn't reliable and opposing counsels job to convince the jury why particular evidence is or isn't reliable. Eye witness testimony …
/r/MensRights09/07/18 02:52 AM
2

Obviously more than one person's testimony should typically be required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but to answer your question testimony is evidence. Evidence can be just about anything, so it wouldn't be zero evidence (though it may be extremely unreliable evidence)
/r/MensRights05/07/18 11:36 PM
7

Would've been way more impressed with 12 grams of Colombian cocaine
/r/MensRights03/07/18 10:44 PM
3

Perjury is one of the most serious crimes and is (supposed to be) treated as such, which is why it's a felony in the US, because it completely undermines the legal system. Contrary to what most people learn watching Law & Order the US legal system (descended from British common law) founded on truthfulness and open communication between parties. If a defense attorney knows his client will lie on the stand, he has a duty to report this to the judge, and be disciplined/disbarred for failing to do …
/r/MensRights11/06/18 11:00 PM
1

I certainly didn't suggest that, but that seems to be the way the person I responded to views things.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 07:09 PM
59

Apparently when your hear "racism" you immediately assume "racism against blacks," which isn't surprising. The majority of minority groups, from the Irish, to Italians and most recently Asians, have overcome discrimination within a generation or two, so your argument that it can't be wiped away in a generation or two doesn't really hold water. It's almost as if differences exist between certain groups...
/r/MensRights12/03/18 06:26 PM
1

Going to the police and getting a restraining order (which would've been essentially guaranteed) would have achieved this more efficiently than going to the university. I don't fault you for not fully understanding the legal system, but I also think it's important to point out that your lack of understanding doesn't act as a justification for reporting crime to the university, rather than the actual police.
/r/MensRights02/03/18 10:02 PM
0

The board is obviously sexism as fuck, but something tells me a university student doesn't have the money to pay a lawyer $200/hr to, at best, get an injunction to remove a display from a bulletin board in a dorm. By the time it made it through the courts the display would already be down and OP possibly graduated. Plus, no lawyer in his right mind would take such a case. I'm all for complaining to the administration and citing title 9 violations, but let's not get carried away throwing around s…
/r/MensRights02/03/18 02:21 AM
16

if they don't respect the equality of both men and women then they're not feminist No true Scottsman again. What you just described is egalitarianism, not feminism. Just because you like that particular definition doesn't mean other people under the flag of feminism abide by it. At what point do you get fed up with writing off 99% of self proclaimed "feminists" as not true feminists and accept that maybe the word doesn't mean what you think it does?
/r/MensRights22/02/18 08:10 PM
23

I'm pretty certain they would all identify as feminists. This is just a blatant "no true feminist" fallacy
/r/MensRights22/02/18 08:04 PM
2

This comment screams angry SJW feminist posing as an MA so xe can turn around and post this comment on xis Tumblr "proving" how secure MRAs are and, despite all the evidence, feminists have the best interest of men at heart. How fucking sad does your life have to be to waste your time on something like that? Nobody says things like "we men's rights people."
/r/MensRights05/08/17 01:38 AM
2

So make her do her share of the "gross" stuff. Why would you do it for her?
/r/MensRights27/05/17 11:04 PM
2

Why do you let her get away with that shit? I assume you get paid the same? She should be doing just as much as you.
/r/MensRights27/05/17 10:26 PM
1

Yea, you seem considerate. I'll just take the word of someone that's admittedly an ass hole.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 01:16 PM
1

Well then you are inconsiderate. You probably stand in the middle of the escalator and block the door of the subway too. Either that or the social norms are different in whatever country you live in and your unfamiliar with common courtesy in US cities
/r/MensRights20/04/17 01:12 PM
1

when there is no one sitting beside me Then there would be no need for someone to ask you to move, so doesn't even apply here.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 05:06 AM
4

He's not commenting on being uncomfortable. He was referring to the fact that you have to consider the possibility of people being mentally unstable and having to deal with the possibility of someone snapping everytime you have to ask them to move. He never said he refused to interact with people. By ignoring social norms and being inconsiderate it forces people into unnecessary negative interactions. Sure you can say something, but if people were aware and considerate it isn't necessary. I've g…
/r/MensRights20/04/17 04:01 AM
1

Spoken like someone that's never been within 200 miles of public transportation in a major city.
/r/MensRights20/04/17 03:12 AM
1

33 going on 50
/r/MensRights17/04/17 10:11 PM
2

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:07 PM
1

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
2

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
2

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
3

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
3

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
2

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
3

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
4

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
3

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
3

Holy shit, that's the saddest, most pathetic place I've ever seen.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 07:06 PM
8

Yea, that's not anywhere close to how damages work
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:20 PM
14

Duh, it's obviously the completely equal decision that the woman gets to make the decision on her own. That's feminist equality for you.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:16 PM
-9

Yay, so the woman gets the best of both sides and the man gets the worst of both. Sounds like you're truly invested in equality.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 05:14 PM
5

I don't think you know what "pretty much" means
/r/MensRights13/09/16 10:51 PM
54

Because you can get cancer in your anus... Just like pretty much every other part if your body.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 09:57 PM
2

You're intelligent
/r/MensRights03/10/15 08:59 AM
29

Wow, he's one grating and offensive asshole. I fucking love it. Every abrasive statement is backed by a slap in the face source. I'll definitely be reading his future articles. Edit: Remembered I had this line copied into my clipboard, even though I didn't know who I would share it with. Didn't want it to go to waste in case anybody missed how awesome it is. They’ve [feminists] been waging a war on sex on campuses and elsewhere for decades. Now, suddenly, they will earn the fruits of their labou…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:26 PM
6

Um, they raided her home. That's how they found the drugs...Not saying I disagree with the idea, but that certainly wasn't the lesson here.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:07 AM
1

While her actions are completely despicable, I'm not sure I agree with the charges. I think they run up against a first amendment problem here. To reiterate, her actions are despicable, but the constitution isn't supposed to be bent to accommodate punishing immoral behavior. I'd be curious to see the specific charges, but either way I think the first amendment wins out here (though an argument could be made that this falls under one of the exceptions).
/r/MensRights21/08/15 05:48 AM
1

They sure did. Otherwise a ton of guilty people would be walking free thanks to me. Great chatting with you.
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:41 AM
1

I wouldn't be surprised if all you're clients were in prison. None are...because most lawyers don't practice criminal law...
/r/MensRights14/08/15 03:21 AM
1

Holy shit you're retarded. I seriously can't read the same terrible argument again. You literally said that public defenders aren't lawyers. I mean I can't even believe you're still trying to rationalize that statement. Many of the best defense (and practices) attorneys started out in that job. Guess they aren't real attorneys. Having a source doesn't mean anything if you have no idea how to interpret the source, or even form a coherent thought. I can't believe you even spent that much time trac…
/r/MensRights14/08/15 02:09 AM
1

A lawyer is a lawyer as long as he is licensed by the bar. It's that simple. No case law needed. I don't know what part of that you are incapable of comprehending.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 11:11 PM
1

Well because I can both afford a lawyer and am a lawyer I won't have to worry about that. Good luck with your promising Internet legal career.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 09:53 PM
-2

A lawyer is a lawyer as long as he is licensed by the bar. It's literally that simple. You were arguing that public defenders don't qualify as lawyers, while your citation refers to a level of representation that's so far below the standard that it's not even in the same ball park as a public defender or even just a really bad lawyer. You have no idea what you're talking about and know nothing about the law or legal profession. You're not even a good Internet lawyer. Even the worst public defend…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 07:51 PM
0

This comment is so dumb I don't even know where to start. Is a bad artist not an artist or a bad dog not a dog? And a human rights violation? What?
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:42 PM
9

That's why you pay a lawyer instead of expecting a public defender, with an already unmanageable caseload, to invest the same kind of time with 1/40th the number of clients (and making 5 times as much). You have a right to an attorney, not a good attorney.
/r/MensRights13/08/15 05:02 AM
10

That's actually a required presumption in most jurisdictions. Whether it's followed is another story, but it would be an ethics violation in these jurisdictions to discuss a general presumption in favor of mother or father.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 06:34 AM
6

various reasons I don't feel like getting into it Another strong, logical argument. Either way you've completely missed the point. The issue isn't the objectification of men. The point is that it's hypocritical to condemn objectification of women, while simultaneously condoning that of men.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 06:06 PM
6

So by logic it's a double standard, but it doesn't matter because reasons? Maybe you should put a bit more emphasis on logic
/r/MensRights04/08/15 04:17 PM
0

The men's version is called "the news"
/r/MensRights04/08/15 04:15 PM
10

Morally and ethically this is true. Unfortunately, most prosecutors are more concerned with furthering their careers than details like whether or not the person whose life they are willing to ruin actually committed a crime.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 03:20 AM
0

Even /r/twoxchromosomes agrees Implying that them agreeing is a rare event. So despite this one instance they usually do not respond this way. Also, you should work on your reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:37 PM
8

Then you should visit TwoX sometime
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:18 PM
0

Nobody uses QR codes. Just add the link(s)
/r/MensRights30/04/15 05:50 AM
-1

Jesus, your comments just get progressively dumber. Go back to Tumblr
/r/MensRights19/03/15 10:18 PM
5

I'd say she is a shitty wife. Good mother, though. he got sick and couldn't work, so she left him Sounds like she's a bad person overall
/r/MensRights16/02/15 03:46 PM
1

Assuming they have the requisite apprehension of harm
/r/MensRights12/01/15 02:50 AM
1

You're not even close. Assault would be if she put them at "imminent apprehension of immediate harm." Battery is assault plus physical contact.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 01:03 PM
1

Nor is it absolute in the US, despite your limited understanding
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:25 AM
1

I don't think these guys should have been punished, but your understanding of the Constitution is pitiful
/r/MensRights08/01/15 06:24 AM
2

If you have a lot of money to pay them up front. Nobody would take a case like that on a contingent fee basis.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 08:35 PM
1

It's not enough that the men are given an obligation that women aren't. To satisfy the standard they must be denied something women are given. That's how the courts look at it when it comes to standing in a lot of different contexts. The argument that group A is being harmed because group B isn't being harmed isn't sufficient. If this weren't such and issue then obviously this atty wouldn't have any trouble finding a (male) plaintiff.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 11:00 PM
1

Because a plaintiff must demonstrate a "concrete, particularized harm." It's not enough more a male to say he's being harmed by women not being subjected to the draft. His injury is too remote and not concrete enough. The harm done to women is more direct. It doesn't have the extra step the man does with issues of remoteness. The difficult part would be to demonstrate what the harm is, but that probably wouldn't be to tough with the right Plaintiff. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ru…
/r/MensRights21/10/14 02:17 AM
2

Because he wouldn't have standing.
/r/MensRights19/10/14 05:49 AM
13

This sounds good in practice, but these campaigns never work.
/r/MensRights19/06/14 09:56 PM
0

The 40% statistic doesn't mean much without some type of source. Not that I think it's unrealistic, but I wouldn't go repeating that number without a bit more behind it.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:49 AM
-1

Do you know about headphones?
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:46 AM
3

Very well reasoned rebuttal.
/r/MensRights08/04/14 06:49 PM
9

"There's no way he would ever ask for that. That would be such a pussy move." I already had that line copied to my clipboard and was going to post a comment about it, but you hit the nail on the head, so I'll just leave it here for context. The emphasis is as it appeared in the article.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 12:00 AM
1

That's a ridiculous rule, but either way it's a policy decision, not a title 9 issue. As long as the restriction isn't based on the content of the message it's fine. So applying it to all posters equally is ok, but applying it to some subjects and not others is not.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:13 PM
3

This is clearly a student organization, not a state actor or the school acting. While I don't agree with the message, there would be clear 1st Amendment problems if the school did in fact try to restrict the speech based on the content of that speech. It is certainly not a Title 9 problem. Just a stupid poster.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 09:04 AM
2

It's not that 5 is more than 2. It's that 2 is less than 5. Also, because racism.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:03 PM
2

The legal system already deals with similar issues in regard to paternity and adoption. In the US all states enacted legislation under a federal act (the name of which escapes me) requiring men to put their names on a paternity register in order to enforce their rights as a parent prior to a child being given up for adoption. If they don't register and aren't on the birth certificate, they lose the legal right to exercise their paternity. This system, is far from perfect (and still gives prefere…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:28 PM
1

This has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy, not sure why you mentioned it. I'm just saying she shouldn't be commended for seeing reason under less than selfless circumstances. It's like setting fire to a house then commending the person that set it for extinguishing the flames. I appreciate that she spoke out, but she won't gain back my respect until she takes affirmative steps to correct past behavior. Steps that go beyond a self serving desire to protect her own family. She didn'…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 10:17 PM
1

It is a dispute between him and the university, a private entity Sounds like the son went to a private school in this instance, but surely it violates procedural due process in regards to public institutions. I'd certainly say that the son has a property right to continued education, since he pays his tuition and more or less has a contract with the university. I know courts have disagreed on the matter, but as far public schools go this seems a pretty clear violation of due process. I'd say it'…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 09:42 PM
1

No, it's not enough. It will be enough when she invests as much time righting her wrongs (perpetuating sexist policies) as she spent causing them to begin with.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 09:34 PM
1

Good comment, but jesus that's a lot of typos
/r/MensRights15/01/14 09:33 PM
3

I have little to now sympathy for this woman (though obviously plenty for the son). This is a case of her getting exactly what she asked for. While she "marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights" she was supporting the exact kinds of policies that put her son in this terrible position. She doesn't just get to switch sides and pretend like she's not guilty of subjecting her son to this kind of…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 09:20 PM
1

You have very poor reasoning skill.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 11:31 PM
2

That's a pretty standard rule of evidence, it's particularly common in criminal cases where the state has obtained evidence without a warrant or something similar. The standard of evidence for impeaching a witness is a much lower bar.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:01 AM
10

In a lot of states this would also be illegal under archaic wire tapping laws.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 07:34 PM
3

Your estate*
/r/MensRights10/11/13 07:56 PM
5

Going anywhere near her vagina sounds like a life ruining mistake.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 05:58 PM
5

And my cat knocks over drinking cups when he gets mad that I'm not playing with him. Ha, my ass hole cat does that too. My cat still manages to have some good qualities though, unlike this chick.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 05:54 PM
1

I think we're pretty much in agreement, I just was confused by your use of the phrase "even better" initially because I was thinking it makes it even worse. Looking at it again you could have meant it positively or negatively and I just interpreted it the wrong way. I'm generally fairly liberal, but shit like affirmative action makes my head spin.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 12:22 AM
1

They're hurt because, all other things equal, a male Asian student has the most difficult time getting into a competitive school. There's always going to be spots at lower end schools, so the rate of attendance relative to percentage of population doesn't tell the whole story. Asian men have a more difficult time getting accepted at schools with a limited number of spots. In my opinion, it completely undermines the entire concept of affirmative action and demonstrates just how unfair of a system…
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:59 PM
1

Your stats demonstrate why Asians suffer as a result of affirmative action. More of them attend making it more competitive for the number of available spots in order for schools to meet their quota...
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:14 PM
2

This actually makes it not as good of satire as if it accurately represented the way affirmative action is applied in practice. Asians typically find it more difficult to get into schools than whites, so this should be reflected by Asians paying higher prices. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by "even better."
/r/MensRights20/10/13 08:38 PM
1

I don't find fat girls "hot."
/r/MensRights16/10/13 02:34 PM
1

Most of them are kinda chubby and/or muscular covered by a layer of fat.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:35 PM
5

It wasn't in the article, so it's not really your fault. I just caught it in the comments. Chalk it up to poor journalism.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:28 AM
14

Because the men have been doing a calender for several years and nobody so much as batted an eyelash...
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:17 AM
3

Not trying to be dick and I totally support what they're doing, but for the most part they're not really traditionally "hot." Though I'll admit they're all probably way hotter than your average feminist, so the feminist outrage/jealousy does make sense in the context you mentioned.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:14 AM
0

Don't you dare ask her to make a rational point.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:30 PM
34

This is gold medal level cognitive dissonance. I bet this guy could convince himself to believe just about anything.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:49 AM
-1

But nothing anywhere actually says she's a feminist. Her actions sure do
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:39 AM
5

The ones on Ohio State's campuses typically preached messages (often with accompanying signs) such as "God Hates Fags." Their entire aim is to upset people enough to garner attention from the crowds that inevitably gather. I never suggested they don't have a right to do it, but these fire and brimstone dickheads are total pieces of shit no matter how you cut it. Don't act like they're out there spreading the word of Jesus because this is not the kind of preaching I was referring to when I used t…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:34 AM
1

Yea, one of the nutjobs that practice "confrontational preaching" as I've heard it referred to. This was posted elsewhere yesterday, but I forget where. Just google Micheala Morales MTSU and some links should come up, but none of them have too much info, which is why I didn't post a link. That' pretty much what I gathered from a few different links.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 01:35 AM
29

This happened in like 2010. The girl ended up having to pay $80 in restitution and got a year of probation. Fuck these crazy evangelical preachers on campuses (though obviously the 1st Amend allows them to this), but this cunt is 1000 times worse. She continued trying to insist it was sexual assault too even after the fact. Justice was not served.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 01:22 AM
2

These kinds of posts do not help our public image at all
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:48 AM
1

They are all settlements of cases where the plaintiffs have at least a decent claim. In this instance there's no chance.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 07:04 AM
-2

I hate to ask for a "source" but can you point me to an instance of this happening outside of the judicial system? Otherwise writing a check would simply be a settlement, which would be the result of a valid claim. The police/state thinks they might lose so the settle. Nothing wrong with that, that's how 95%+ of cases are handled in our courts. Overcoming qualified immunity requires malice, which is a burden that would never be overcome in this instance (it's nearly impossible to overcome when t…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:42 AM
43

Sue the police, sue the girls! Cash out muthafucka You have no idea how the judicial system works.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:22 AM
54

Sue the police. Haha that's a good one. Read up on qualified immunity.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:20 AM
18

Taking the risk of having no option but to pay huge sums of money over the course of 18+ years, while the woman is merely taking the risk of getting pregnant and then doing whatever she chooses to do. The difference is that after sex women still have a wide range of choices available, whereas men essentially have none.
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:34 PM
2

He/She is distinguishing rape from sexual assault and you're not. It would be difficult for a person to rape someone that is fully clothed in winter gear. Sure they could still very easily be sexually assaulted, but I think we all agree that rape is worse than sexual assault. I don't think "most people" suggest/discuss that clothing will prevent rape from happening. I think that rational people simply realize that it will reduce the likelihood (even if only by an extremely small amount) of a per…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 03:47 PM
1

Nope. Feminism by definition advocates for equality, right? I proved that above. No
/r/MensRights04/07/13 05:13 AM
4

Here we go with the no true scottsman/feminist fallacy again. "All feminists that do things I don't like aren't real feminists."
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:59 PM
9

I wish this was the John McCain the ran for president. I probably wouldn't have voted for him at the time, but looking back I'm not sure he could have been any worse than our current president. Up until and after his presidential run he seems to be a very reasonable guy that's willing to go against the will of his party when necessary. It's unfortunate that this wasn't the same McCain that ran for president.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:43 PM
2

People struggle to pick up on sarcasm in the comments. It has caused me to experience many down-votes. Your sarcasm wasn't even subtle, but I guess with the number of psycho feminazi's we get around here it's easy to assume that there's someone crazy enough to genuinely post even the most outrageous comments.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 06:48 AM
1

all rapists are men Spoken like a true feminist.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:36 AM
1

I was thinking the same thing. Equity would simply be a picture where nobody has a box to stand on. This is similar to the basis for how courts of equity used to work and how courts apply equitable standards to day. The idea is that you are returned to the state you were in before you were wronged, in order to make you whole again. Additionally, equity requires you come to the table "with clean hands," so I'm pretty sure 90% of feminists wouldn't qualify.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:46 PM
1

Realistically you're right. There isn't much point in investing tons of money, just to ruin her life. I suppose if you had buckets of cash to throwaway it would be worth it, but for 99% of us it's not worth it. The best part about becoming an attorney is that (once I pass the bar) I can pursue shit like this on my own without having to pay some ass hole an unreasonable sum. It's bullshit that she (or any false accuser, male or female) can get away with such an abhorable act, but the way the syst…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:59 AM
4

Usually it's the audio portion of the recording that creates the problem. I'm not sure there are any states that prohibit recording video in your own home, but I haven't really looked into it.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:45 PM
2

The problem is that the nature of false accusations is such that collecting reliable data is all but impossible. Rape statistics are already wildely inaccurate, especially the bullshit numbers we see feminists putting forth as fact time and time again.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:43 PM
1

Depending on how long ago it was you could sue her for slander, depending on how long ago it happened/whether the statutes of limitations has run. You would be unlikely to win, but if you're significantly better of than her financially, you could bankrupt her through forcing her to pay attorney fees. It will be expensive to you too, but sometimes (legal) revenge is worth investing in.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:41 PM
1

I have a hard time categorizing this as rape. If you weren't interested then you should have continued to emphasize that you weren't interested and/or left the shower and gotten dressed. Absent fear of physical harm, expanding the definition of rape to encompass these situations is a slippery slope. By the feminist definition of rape, I agree that you were raped, but I think we should restrict the definition to instances of actual rape. There was nothing stopping you from getting out of the show…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:52 PM
1

I would suggest pursuing charges for rape/sexual assault by fraud. Though succeeding would be a long shot, your situation could set a precedent for other men in the same position. There's plenty of case law of it happening with the genders were switch, which would support your claim...though we all know that's not how it usually works out.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:34 PM
1

Pretty much anything where decent chunk of change is involved. It's obviously a better option for clients that can't afford to pay, but it's riskier for the attorney. As a result, the attorney usually makes more if his client is able to recover, but risks making nothing at all. Often times the attorney gives the client the option to choose and is ethically bound to explain the benefits of each, along with general estimates of the price difference. Over 90% of cases are settled before even reachi…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:38 AM
1

Unless he takes the case on a contingent fee basis as lawyers often do, in which case her lawyer would not get paid
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:17 PM
7

That is the metaphor...
/r/MensRights19/03/13 01:30 AM
3

This is not how a law is drafted and it's misleading to suggest that this resembles a law/statute in anyway. This is just an aggregation of vague, overly-broad statements. While I agree with some of them, it is far from "The Ultimate Equality Law." I see much better recommendations for potential changes in the law, public policy and society's attitude towards gender in this sub everyday.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:55 PM
2

As I said, if you go on a non-SRSPrime board and are polite and on-topic, you won't be deleted or banned. maybe you won't be banned, but those of us that aren't fucking psychos will in an instant.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:11 PM
7

Except thus sub doesn't delete and ban anyone with dissenting viewpoints, which is exactly what every SRS sub does.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:03 PM
8

because i believe that people with opposing viewpoints should engage in discussion so as to find common ground and strengthen and flush-out the nuances of their worldview? Coming from someone that posts in SRS this might be the most hypocritical statement I have ever heard.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:35 PM
1

Excellent point. I love watching the mental gymnastics feminists go through to justify this kind of discrimination.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:45 PM
2

As long as it's a private club, you can do what you want So I guess you could prohibit disabled people from attending? Oh wait, the ADA exists for that. Just because it's private doesn't mean you can do anything you please.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:42 PM
1

Some states/cities have done so in the US as well
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:40 PM
2

they'd be protected from a lawsuit, since it's now a he-said-she-said You are a true legal scholar...
/r/MensRights06/03/13 06:37 PM
3

Which demonstrates how misleading using Texas was to begin with. Not to mention this is "subsistence levels" for food, assumes the current population and disregards all the other resources required by modern civilization.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 04:15 PM
11

yea, because living space is all that is necessary to sustain the human population. It's not like we need to be able to grow food or obtain any other type of resources. The issue is that we're depleting the planets resources at a higher rate than we can sustaine relative to population size/growth.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 02:41 PM
-5

Something tells me that they would disagree with you.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 02:37 PM
-2

Because Google
/r/MensRights30/01/13 12:10 AM
10

legal standing I don't think you properly understand the term "standing."
/r/MensRights29/01/13 08:34 AM
110

By raping them obviously
/r/MensRights15/01/13 11:59 PM
5

No, she wasn't dominating anything. She was terrible, but I never had a problem with having her on the team. I just thought it was unfair how she would get preferential treatment over kids that were better and worked a lot harder than her. If a guy was one of the worst player's on a girls team he wouldn't get any special treatment. He would sit on the bench until he either improved or the game was a blowout.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:08 AM
7

Haha well you guys typically get a lot more/cheaper ice time which seems to have a pretty significant impact. I played in high school in southwestern OH and we used to dominate just about every team in the southern 80% of the state, but as you got further North we would get less and less competitive. By the time we reached the OH-MI boarder we were about average. 50 more miles to Detroit and we would get beat pretty consistently. MOre than another 100 or so miles and I'm not sure there's a singl…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:02 AM
10

She "made" the team because it was the JV team, which didn't cut people and the only level lower was the freshmen team, which wasn't allowable because she was a senior (playing down an age group is never allowed, but playing up almost always is). She played way more than the 1 or 2 male players that were equally as terrible as her because the coaches wanted to avoid accusations of sexism. This was extremely unfair to the 1 or 2 boys that, although untalented, had been on the team the entire seas…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:45 AM
55

Haha I can relate very well to this. I think in my 8 years of playing hockey I only came across one girl that could play at the same level as the boys she was playing with. This was on a A level travel team, so one step above club, composed of 6th and 7th graders. She was about average size and average skill on a fairly good team. The next year when checking was allowed (and the boys started getting bigger) she was moved down to the club team and even then couldn't really keep up. Size really wa…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 02:39 AM
1

Sounds like a slam dunk 4th Amend claim if this was at a public school.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:02 PM
1

before I go to extremes by calling in a doctor This attitude is not helping your daughter. Calling a dr. is not extreme, it's the best way to address any (potential) problems.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:01 PM
-4

So at church today found your problem.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:53 PM
8

You are clearly a very angry person. You should probably get that rage under control if you ever want to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:30 PM
3

Maybe she should address the fact that she thinks everything is about her and the way she feels
/r/MensRights01/12/12 10:49 PM
3

I'm not disagreeing with the substance of the comic, just pointing out that we get sick of seeing it here every other day. It was cool 3 years ago the first time we all saw it.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 10:16 PM
117

Oh, this again
/r/MensRights29/11/12 07:55 PM
15

Because this runs in direct contradiction to their faulty claim/mantra that men can't possible be oppressed in any way shape or form
/r/MensRights24/11/12 03:35 AM
0

Big surprise
/r/MensRights20/11/12 06:52 PM
1

The restaurant is private property, and they should be able to charge whatever they want to whomever they want. This is the worst argument I've ever heard and shows a dizzying lack of understanding of the law.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 10:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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