TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

QuixoticTendencies Archive

View 0 posts and 202 comments by QuixoticTendencies 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

You said we were done before. I'm hoping you make good on that statement.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 06:27 AM
1

You have to result to going off topic because you have nothing else to say and you need to express your emotions No, It's because half of your comment was utterly idiotic, and the other half was non sequitur. I don't actually agree that she should be tried, I just said yes to provoke a reaction out of you Uh huh.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:55 AM
1

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I was talking about myself. Not so. Rather, the statement "you lose the argument as soon as you go and call the other person you're arguing with stupid" is false. That is not the way argumentation works. You made a good effort though. Clear now?
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:39 AM
1

Yeah, that's not how argumentation works. Good try though.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:19 AM
1

She was 11 when she committed the crime. You can't be this stupid.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 05:00 AM
1

Ok. I assumed it was the UK because Daily Mail I guess, and didn't see the word "Washington".
/r/MensRights15/07/14 04:41 AM
1

And they'd be wrong.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 02:44 AM
1

Yes, it is wrong that she stayed quiet for several years after she was old enough to understand the situation. That is not in dispute. There is certainly an argument for her to be charged with withholding testimony if the UK doesn't have an equivalent of the US's Fifth Amendment. My contention is that she cannot be held legally culpable for the original false accusation, because she was 11 at the time.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 02:36 AM
2

It's barbaric to think that 11 year olds should be tried as adults. Witty sarcasm though.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 02:29 AM
1

Just because the reason they chose to not prosecute is not the age of the criminal does not mean the age of the criminal is not a legitimate reason not to prosecute.
/r/MensRights15/07/14 02:25 AM
-5

Go on.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:16 PM
-19

Oh, well that's ok then. As long as you have a cute rhyme to sum up your barbaric ideals of justice, you're in the clear.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 06:16 PM
-22

clear cut case of false testimony, false allegations, and character defamation. How on earth is it clear cut? The girl was 11 when she committed the crime...
/r/MensRights14/07/14 05:43 PM
5

It's very much like Christians who point out their scripture which says that they will be mocked, and use any example of being mocked as vindication for their beliefs.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 11:09 AM
1

So rather than talk about how alimony incentivizes divorce and how alimony needs to be reworked or abolished, you choose to talk about how in dem olden days couples stayed together more often and it was great that divorce was unavailable... Okay.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 10:55 AM
2

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that the unavailability of divorce in premodern times was a good thing?
/r/MensRights25/06/14 10:42 AM
2

I'm not surprised. The Red Cross is pretty repugnant as charities go.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 07:44 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony Alimony as a concept has existed since time immemorial. Your traditionalist picture of the past is not accurate.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:28 PM
1

Please continue in your delusion that "The Left" is a massive political conspiracy. "Being a ridiculous feminist jerk" is not a requirement to be a leftist. Leftism is nothing more than a political philosophy that emphasizes liberty and deemphasizes traditionalism. Just as I'm sure you're put out by everyone who thinks that the Right is just a big golf club for rich fundamentalist fire-and-brimstone wingnuts with little understanding of economics and even less understanding of the constitution, …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 06:26 PM
-3

Are you saying that you think that transgender people don't exist?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 12:28 PM
4

Your reply contains no commentary other than bare contradiction of my statements. Fix this and I may respond.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:51 AM
8

Traditionally, men were sent en masse to die in war. Now it is a selective draft, and is unlikely to happen. Traditionally, men were expected to die in place of women and children in disasters or they were outcast and reviled. Now they are not. Traditionally, men were expected to build a family, and to work backbreaking jobs to care for that family, or they weren't real men. Now a man can stay single forever and, so long as he gets laid occasionally, he's cool. Traditionally, both men and women …
/r/MensRights24/06/14 11:08 AM
3

No they didn't.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:30 AM
0

So the word "cisgendered" isn't to be used, ever? How about "heterosexual"? "Asian"? Since the norm for a lifeform is to be a bacterium, is the word "bacterium" bad? Is the word "Hydrogen" bad because it describes the most common element?
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:28 AM
1

I am a progressive, and I hate Islam. But continue with the "all liberals are cultural marxist feminists" circlejerk.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 09:24 AM
2

Not that I've heard. She probably got some prison time. It seems to me that that's one of those crimes that would be down in the books as flat out requiring jail time, no matter what the judge's prejudices. I can hope, anyway.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 04:55 PM
9

At the time the article was posted, sentencing hadn't been decided on, as more charges were due to be made. I can't imagine she'd be let off for killing a child, even if she is a woman.
/r/MensRights23/06/14 11:02 AM
3

What the fuck are you talking about?
/r/MensRights21/06/14 05:34 AM
1

That they had to go to court means they were being attacked. That they won means they were being attacked unjustifiably. Yes, but examples of "people being attacked for their beliefs" was not what I asked for. Murder is the premeditated killing of one human being by another. Life begins at conception because that is when a separate, unique, living human being exists. A zygote is not a human being. A blastocyst is not a human being. There is no "human being" until the genetically human organism g…
/r/MensRights18/06/14 03:08 AM
1

I gave you 5 examples of people actually using the government to infringe on others' religious rights. Why are you narrowing it to a lobby? No, you gave me less than 5 examples of people using their own power, whether as an employer or as a high ranking member of an institution, to infringe on others' religious rights, all of whom were smacked down by the government when the people they discriminated against went to the government for help. The discriminators didn't go to the government for help…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:55 AM
1

A public school is a government position. A police officer is a government position. The other examples were examples of people having to go to court to defend their religion. I'm throwing my hands in the air as I type this. I don't get how you can't see that's literally government dealing with issues that they shouldn't be. Just admit that there are people out there that attack Christians because of their beliefs! Are you seriously this dense? Is English your second language or something? I ask…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:32 PM
1

Here is what you said, which I first responded to: The people AlongAustower was referring to are trying to get government to tread in matters of the church. Here is my response: Who would those people be? The school didn't ask the government to get involved on their behalf. The pastor was cited for violating building codes. No lobby asked the government to send the police to accost the 5 street preachers. The police did so of their own accord, and were overruled by the government. One student es…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 01:48 PM
1

You don't consider things from other people's point of view. It's your way or the highway. (That's bigotry) It would be "closed-mindedness" if it were true, which it isn't, not "bigotry". But I do consider things from alternative points of view. If I didn't I wouldn't be having this conversation. I wouldn't have asked you who you thought was trying to get the government to interfere in religious matters. Stop trying to avoid arguing by calling me an awful person, by the way. My politeness or lac…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 07:20 AM
1

The people AlongAustower was referring to are trying to get government to tread in matters of the church. Who would those people be? This was my first reply. I was not involved at all in your discussion with Chocoboat. Stop trying to get me involved in it. I replied to ask you who was trying to get the government involved in matters of religion. You failed to successfully argue that anyone is. I don't care about your feelings. I don't care that you think leftists are meanies just because they ca…
/r/MensRights15/06/14 09:14 PM
1

I gave you solid argumentation based on experience in the gay community. You have thusfar provided no evidence, no examples, no citations, no quotes, no nothing. If you want me to take you seriously, argue seriously. P.S. You started with how gay marriage is literally trampling on religious rights. Are you seriously going to fucking deny that we had that discussion and claim that, all along, you've been talking about people saying mean words?
/r/MensRights15/06/14 05:35 AM
1

Give a fucking example then. I have been waiting half a dozen replies for you to give me a link or a quote or something. But no, you just gave me some nebulous bullshit about teh gayz wanting 2 get marreed and how they're totally infringing on your freedom of religion.
/r/MensRights15/06/14 05:10 AM
1

Enlighten me then. This is two replies devoid of content now. Will you post a third?
/r/MensRights15/06/14 03:17 AM
1

You can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, dude. I have evidence on my side though, borne of long experience in the gay community. I'll hazard a guess that your experience is chiefly or solely of feminists speaking on our behalf on the internet. That is, if you're not simply pulling your opinions directly out of your ass. Now address my arguments, please, not my ending remarks.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 11:36 PM
1

For the former, it shouldn't even be a thing. Civil unions were already in place. No one was being oppressed. But they wanted state recognition of a religious sacrament. And it has been causing problems. No. Civil unions are an offensively second-class version of civil marriage. I'm all for civil unions being the thing the government oversees and grants all the rights and "marriage" being some legally meaningless religious thing like baptism, but the rights that getting a civil union grants are …
/r/MensRights14/06/14 08:12 PM
2

"You're a person who hates father's day (or whatever), therefore I'm going to accuse you of having had bad experiences with your father" Who the fuck did he accuse? This is what he said: This supports a personal theory that most radfems come from broken homes. You'd have to have either been abused by your father or never had a father to support something so horrible. He speculated that most people who support something so horrible (ending Fathers' Day) probably didn't have worthwhile fathers. He…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:30 PM
3

All of what you just said is absolutely ridiculous. Religious motives abolitionists may have had, but hardly conservative ones. "Conservative" doesn't mean "Is religious." it means "Supports the status quo." Slavery was the status quo, and therefore supporting it was a conservative idea. And you've mythologized the history of the Republican party if you think they've ever been for equal opportunity. Even when Abe abolished slavery and the GOP was less racist than they've ever been, he didn't thi…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:15 PM
1

Marriage as a contract or marriage as a ceremony? The former is none of the church's business. Nobody is trying to meddle in the latter.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:08 PM
3

It's the only contract that can be dissolved without the consent of both parties. The only situation in which it can be dissolved without the consent of both parties is when one party is seen to have broken the terms; exactly the same as every other contract. Additionally, contracts are handled by the judiciary. It is the legislature which dictates who may engage in contracts. Individuals cannot be coerced into the signing of a contract, by legislation. Parents of infants may not sign said infan…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 03:49 PM
1

No, I want what matters they are trying to tread into, and preferably also their ideological labels.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 02:11 PM
5

I for example, am not in favor of gay marriage because I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business entirely. If you're trying to gain legal recognition for your marriage you're inherently agreeing that the government has a right to decide who is and is not married. Marriage is just a contract. All contracts are in government hands, because government is the authority that binds them. Marriage is the only type of contract the parties signing which are required by law to be of oppos…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:58 PM
1

The people AlongAustower was referring to are trying to get government to tread in matters of the church. Who would those people be?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:44 PM
3

Except that's wrong, because the Republicans used to be the left-leaning party and the Democrats used to be the right-leaning party.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:41 PM
2

What on Earth is misogynistic about speculating that people who have no respect for fatherhood might have had abusive or neglectful fathers? Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 02:41 AM
1

Is it really that strange to imagine that most people supporting the end of Fathers' Day would be people who haven't known good fathers?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:54 AM
1

My Grandma, bless her heart, thinks she knows which route to take better than the computer which knows the exact distance of all possible routes, the current traffic on every major road in the city, the number of traffic lights on every street, and can give an updated-by-the-second projection of the exact time of arrival on the current route. It's both endearing and deeply infuriating.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 07:01 PM
1

I'm pretty sure any skiddie with a template can make a reddit bot as simple as "Find <string 1> in any comment on any sub excluding <blacklist> and respond with <string 2>". It's the idea that they haven't thought "You know this might not be funny anymore" and ctrl-x'd the program by now that gets me.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 06:52 PM
5

That you think half of all women suffer from NPD betrays some pretty severe misogyny. As in, not feminist "You're misogynistic because you think men are discriminated against!" bullshit, but proper "You clearly have some terrible views about women at large and not in an intellectual 'I have a few statistics to back me up and I think I'm rational' way, but in an emotional 'I've had bad experiences with women and I'm projecting them on all womenkind' way." I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn t…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 06:44 PM
1

No he didn't. Please read your comment first and then read his. You uttered a non sequitur, and he countered with a satirical further non sequitur. He made use of a form of reductio ad absurdum, which is not a fallacy, not reductio ad hitlerum, which is one. I illustrated how the non sequitur could be laid bare without mentioning Nazis at all when I wrote the following: Group A which is opposed to Group B is not all bad, therefore Group B which is opposed to Group A cannot be all bad" is a simpl…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:59 AM
1

The only people who don't take MRAs seriously are feminists and hardline traditionalist "man up and stop bitching" people, neither of which can be reached by any sort of polite reasoning. I'm sorry if you think that the feminists who hate Men's Rights are vincible by reason, because you've got a long road ahead of you. I want people to know how harmful religion is. I likewise want people to know how harmful feminism is. Neither is achievable if I just sit back and pretend the opposite.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 12:50 AM
2

What feminist sub do you frequent then if it isn't /r/feminism and it isn't /r/SRSDiscussion? TwoX?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:34 PM
2

It's correct though, to talk about the movement as a whole being bad. I don't care if I look bad to a Christian when I say "The Christian church is a massive engine of suffering." and I don't care if I look bad to a feminist when I say "Feminism is highly corrosive to both my gender and society as a whole." Why should I lie by omission just because it might make feminists hate me just a little less?
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:29 PM
3

But he didn't do that. And the fallaciousness of reductio ad hitlerum has nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis. It's just a specialized ad hominem. "This person who is generally agreed to have been bad did this thing which you also do." has absolutely nothing to do with Godwin's Law, which is just a thought-terminating cliche that people on the internet reference when anyone mentions the Nazis ever.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 11:21 PM
0

Ok, now tell me as an atheist what my response to "misguided <religion>" should be, because my blanket distaste for religion is bad for appearances and "not productive".
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:50 PM
2

He didn't, though... He was making a direct analogy. "Group A which is opposed to Group B is not all bad, therefore Group B which is opposed to Group A cannot be all bad" is a simple non sequitur.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:44 PM
13

Several MRAs I've come across actually do say things like "women can't do logic". I know full well it isn't a widespread belief, but they don't tend to get downvoted, and feminists will use that as proof that the MRM are all a bunch of misogynists.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:38 PM
2

I'd love to be able to go into a feminist space and argue my POV and only have to fear receiving downvotes. But nope, you sit here and argue away, complaining about your internet points, and I'll go to SRSDiscussion and just get banned instantly.
/r/MensRights04/06/14 10:33 PM
1

If you have to persuade a girl to have sex with you then yes it is coersion. If you keep asking/"persuading" when a girl says "No" then you are a horrible person. You don't seem to understand what persuasion means. Also, your moral compass is fucked if you think that trying to get something by asking more than once is somehow wrong. Why do I have a feeling that you're one of those people who think a woman is obligated to have sex with a guy if he does things to "persuade" her? Because you're a c…
/r/MensRights29/05/14 11:37 AM
0

And take revenge against all the other men for being better than him with women. I don't know about you, but that screams of vagina worship to me, not misogyny. You know those Christians who sometimes curse God for their problems? Yeah, that's the extent that Elliot Rodger hated women. He wanted to fucking gendercide men.
/r/MensRights28/05/14 08:33 PM
56

Feminists understand "coercion" to mean "any form of persuasion whatsoever".
/r/MensRights28/05/14 01:18 PM
1

Men aren't nearly as affected by negative stereotypes regarding gender. Sure there are some inequalities for both men and women that are equally unfair. But a significant amount more with women. The sad thing is that you and so many other people believe this tripe.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 03:26 AM
2

Hahaha ur mad lolol everybody luk at dis mad dood isnt he so mad? ~You
/r/MensRights09/05/14 07:45 AM
2

He did directly imply women shouldn't have the right to vote since they don't earn it like men who are forced to sign up for the draft, yes. I did not misinterpret it. No he fucking didn't. He said that men are EXPECTED to earn their "right" to vote by signing up for a potential draft. Women are not. In other words, it is only a "right" where women are concerned. He even outlined three possible states of affairs: Men and women both have the right to vote but men must earn it by signing up for a …
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:25 AM
0

and from California What does that matter?
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:55 AM
3

Holy fuck, you're dense.
/r/MensRights04/05/14 07:00 AM
1

Is the definition sexist? No, not really. Is it correct? No. Sexism is not typically directed toward women. That the lexicographer thought it is may be indicative of their own sexism, but the definition is not strictly sexist.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 01:00 AM
2

The point of Jailing someone is not to be convenient for the state. The point of Jailing someone is to punish someone for a crime committed. This is the opposite of the truth. The point of imprisonment is that the state benefits from the threat of it.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 04:00 AM
3

Gay men are not actually "gay" in the sense that they are attracted to men. They choose to be with men because they view men as better and women as lesser and thus don't see women as worthy of their time. Really? Interesting. Where do bi guys fit into this model?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 12:19 AM
10

I provided my substance already. It's my opponents' turn.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 03:28 AM
2

Indeed I will.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:48 AM
11

*waits patiently for a statement of any substance*
/r/MensRights23/02/14 02:46 AM
10

Don't derail. Do you think that a wage gap, if it existed, would be a bigger problem than a gendered homelessness, incarceration, murder, or suicide problem? Do you think it would be more of an issue than men being eligible to be sent off to die in pointless combat at the behest of the legislative branch? Do you think it would be more of an issue than men having their children taken away from them and given to unfit persons? None of the issues feminism claims to champion are more important than …
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:56 AM
7

what you guys seem to not grasp is that the feminist movement is more concerned with bringing up those from the bottom If it was, it would be focused on helping men, because a higher rate of homelessness, incarceration, murder, and suicide are all much bigger problems than a nonexistent "wage gap" which even by feminist statistics is incredibly tiny.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:35 AM
59

And Islam is a religion of peace. And Christianity is a religion of love. And White Nationalism is a movement for cultural integrity. And Juche is an ideology of self-reliance.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:31 AM
27

Why don't they get rid of the name then? I thought Feminism was supposed to be all about discarding stupid-ass traditions.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:23 AM
1

I got the impression that the post you disagreed with was referring to SRS's concept of ableism and that you misapprehended it. I may be wrong of course, but it's what I took from it.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 07:46 PM
1

It has precisely the same denotation. What the connotation is depends entirely on who you talk to. "Cunt" has a casual connotation in many anglophone cultures and subcultures. I've never heard of a place where "dick" is anything but a dire condemnation of the target's personality.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:19 PM
5

Except SRS would call that ableism. Like they call the belief that disabilities are actually disabilities and cures and treatments should be pursued for them "ableism" and "culture erasure". Just because ableism legitimately exists doesn't mean SRS's concept of it should be respected.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:11 PM
2

Agreed, but people are unique. One might be in such a mood that they won't settle for any girl but the one they have their eye on, even if one has access to more objectively attractive girls by the dozen.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 10:44 PM
2

Muslims in the UK voluntarily submit themselves to such courts, who handle religious rather than legal matters, and have no actual authority. It's basically playing pretend.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 10:02 PM
3

Well, consider that rich and powerful men, who have, as you put it, an army of women to suck their dick at the drop of a hat, may grow to feel entitled to sex. They go on to encounter a woman not in their sex army, and they want sex from them. So they proposition them, and try to have sex with them, and are assertive and insistent and they don't take no for an answer. It needs only happen once.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 10:00 PM
1

Generational elitism is irritating as fuck, yeah. I cringed.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 09:12 AM
1

Editors with whom advanced syntax is not well acquainted with to for with by.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 09:10 AM
3

What she is saying is that she believes there is a such a vast and incontrovertible body of evidence in favor of the idea of female oppression as to obviate the need for further debate. Not so vast as to obviate the need for further debate, no. Rather, so vast as to warrant prohibition of further debate. That is certainly treating the belief as sacred. In skeptical inquiry, no body of evidence is so vast or incontrovertible that new arguments and evidence should not be forwarded when discovered,…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 04:04 AM
2

Comment on a different post then. If the sub is so overrun with such, it oughtn't be difficult to find one. I think that would be preferable to shitting all over this post, whose authenticity you've no reason other than cynicism-disguised-as-wisdom to doubt. Go lack empathy elsewhere.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:02 AM
4

We are though.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:59 AM
1

had he been born a different gender, he would be alive right now bitching about the smallest little slights. Your illiteracy is showing.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:42 AM
2

That'll be because voting isn't in anyway tied to fighting. That'll be why, as a man, you are required to sign up for a potential draft to be granted the right to vote.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:29 AM
1

You really want me to demonstrate that nobody is a perfect rationalist? You want me to empirically prove a negative? You claim you are a perfect rationalist. And yet you think it's possible to empirically prove a negative. Jesus Christ, you are a character. You appear to be a simple minded pseudo-intellectual fool Sick burn, bro. You appear to be an addle-brained cretin.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 05:08 AM
2

I am not.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:58 AM
0

Everyone has unreasonable beliefs. Nobody is a perfect rationalist. Holding an unreasonable belief does not mean you are not, in general, a reasonable person.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 02:28 AM
4

No, one is "Hey, I don't give a shit about your feelings. Cede all your reproductive rights and stay with me or I will dump you somewhere down the line when you might be financially/emotionally dependent on me." and one is "Hey, I give a shit about your feelings, so if you fancy reproducing, now's the time for us to start seeing other people so there's no catastrophic drama in future." Do you not fucking understand the difference between "Let's be sensible and weigh options honestly" and "TO SEC…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 02:36 PM
8

I mean, saying, "If you want kids someday, we should break up," is basically the same as saying, "If you get accidentally pregnant someday, you better get an abortion immediately or I'm going to dump your sorry ass." Yep, he pretty much said that. No, what he pretty much said was "If you'd like to have a child, we ought not pursue a long term relationship, because I do not wish to have a child. If this is a point that you can slide on, let us continue seeing each other. If not, let us go amicabl…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 02:17 PM
1

Wow. Yes, continue to use the same strawman over and over. Males are, and always have been, the predominate casualties of war.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 12:33 AM
4

Must suck to not be taken seriously... I mean, I just have to be prepared to risk my life to help a woman or a child, or I'm not a man. I just have to sign up to be sent off to die in a foreign land on the whim of the oligarchy in order to not be sent to prison. I only get sentenced many times more harshly than a woman does for the same crime. I only have to deal with the fact that if I get raped it's not legitimate. All I have to deal with is the social acceptability of female-on-male domestic …
/r/MensRights21/12/13 12:53 PM
2

White people are better off than every other race of people, at least in western society. White men are lower in the measure of privilege than white women.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 09:15 AM
2

A select few white men and women did. Granted, more men than women held and hold positions of power, but they sacrificed many more men than women to acquire those positions of power. The few men who have held power through history have paid for it with the blood of other men.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 09:09 AM
2

Because there is no white male privilege. Whites are a privileged group. Men are not a privileged group. What you have when you combine whiteness and maleness is negative gender discrimination which is partially mitigated by positive racial discrimination.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 04:44 AM
3

The accused has the right to face the accuser. If you get raped and you refuse to report your rape in a manner that preserves that right, I am sorry, but your rapist gets to go free. The fact that there is a system by which accusers can accuse anonymously and actually have their accusations followed through on is a travesty of justice and should be shut down.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:10 AM
8

Key word is "supposed". He didn't say that rapes aren't real if they aren't taken to the police. He said that the preferred course of action when you have really been raped is to go to the police. IFF Rape = Real, THEN Police Report is quite different from IFF Police Report, THEN Rape = Real
/r/MensRights17/12/13 11:06 AM
1

Generally religious people who legitimately care about right and wrong (as opposed to those who only "care" because they're afraid of hellfire) will care about it just the same if they deconvert. We evolved ethics before we evolved religion. People who just don't care just don't care, and they need fear to live within the rules that society needs. It hardly makes a difference whether that fear come from religion or law.
/r/MensRights15/12/13 06:27 AM
0

You had so many spelling errors there I had trouble understanding exactly what you were trying to say. Let's just go through a few of your points though. URSS, Pol Pot, Stalin... I would not be so sure if religion is so bad, after watching what past century's state atheism promoted. The USSR under Stalin didn't promote atheism. The USSR under Stalin promoted worship of the proletariat and total reliance on the state. Part of this involved persecution of other religions, but it was no less religi…
/r/MensRights15/12/13 02:26 AM
6

UK and Northern Ireland define it as IMPOSSIBLE for women to be rapists. Well, at least they also define it as impossible to rape someone by accident. *sigh*
/r/MensRights08/12/13 04:17 PM
1

The distinction is irrelevant to the analogy. They're also comparing death or injury by blunt force of automobile impact to rape. Also, they're comparing something that usually happens during the day to something that usually happens at night. An automobile is made chiefly of metal, whilst a rapist's penis is flesh. All completely irrelevant to the point that in both cases, it is possible to minimize risk, and in one case that possibility is taught and in one that possibility is ignored.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 06:49 PM
7

No, you fucking moron. Nobody is saying that rape is the victim's fault. "It is possible for someone to reduce the probability of them being raped." is not the same as "It was your fault that you got raped."
/r/MensRights07/12/13 05:34 PM
3

One thing of note. This actually isn't a false accusation, it's just a false report. She identified no person as her rapist, only giving a description of a fictional man with a fictional tattoo. SInce no man who happened to have matched that description was arrested, the crime was victimless, save for the police officers whose time she wasted.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 08:43 AM
3

What feminists and liberals here: 'I hate women!' Christ, I wish people would stop lumping in all liberals together like we're some kind of fucking cabal. Just say "feminists".
/r/MensRights29/11/13 06:56 AM
4

Wrong on all counts. 1....In response to the following: 'Do no harm' is not the same and [sic] 'Do good'. By refusing to help men they allow harm to occur but they don't do that harm. Actually, it is, and they do. To be be fully capable of preventing or undoing a harm, and to withhold said preventative or curative measure, is doing a harm. This is not a matter of ethics, but of causality. Anyone who has studied causality even passingly will note that every single event has nigh innumerable cause…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 11:37 PM
0

Pearl Harbor was not intended as the prelude to an invasion. Pearl Harbor was a preventative measure, taken by Japan as an attempt to keep the US from thwarting their plans for the Pacific. The same goes for Japan's attempts to secure outposts on the Aleutian peninsula. Japan never harbored any delusions of conquering any significant part of US territory, and if Germany or Italy did, they never could have realized their delusions.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:13 PM
0

The US was not under threat of invasion in WWII.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 06:31 PM
-2

It's a tricky question. It comes down to what you think is more important, the right of a child to a decent childhood, the right of the mother to bodily autonomy, or the right of the father to bodily autonomy. If A, forced abortion is ideal because it would prevent mothers from bringing children into the world to lead shitty lives. If B, parental surrender for the father with no compulsion to abort is ideal. If C, forced abortion is ideal, with parental surrender as a close second, because bodil…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 05:03 PM
7

But that's not what "creep" means, at least not when these people use it. When these people use it, they mean "You have social issues that I wish to ridicule you for." Either that or "I have social issues that I wish to project upon you so that I may feel better about myself."
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:53 PM
12

I would trust the coder responsible for writing you with any school counselling positions that it fell to me to fill.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:48 PM
30

True, it would be nice if asshole parents would stop indoctrinating their girls into thinking that sex is shameful, but I think that in these cases, the more important issue is that girls be taught that rape accusations should not be seen as a get out of jail free card. Somehow, whilst we have been teaching boys that rape is abhorrent for the past few hundreds of years, we've forgotten to teach girls that accusing someone of rape because you don't want to grow a spine and deal with a little sham…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:45 PM
6

I tyre of purple masturbating that insurfable crochet abbot insolubility two eye 'n' stain
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:13 AM
0

You wouldn't really fit into this discussion, because from what I can see, everyone is talking about what to call people in the context of a criminal investigation. Also, nobody is saying that an "alleged victim" isn't a victim, only that we don't know whether or not they are. Schrödinger's cat might be dead, and it might not be. We can't say which one it is until we open the box and see.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 04:13 AM
0

I don't see why you think that what "ped" means in Latin is in any way relevant. That'd be like saying that the Turkish word for Friday, "cuma", can never evolve into "kuma" because "kuma" is Japanese for bear. You're just being ridiculous.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 11:35 PM
0

If you could show that the word "cake" has evolved to mean "brick", then yes you could. Language is fluid and ever-changing. The root you refer to comes from "pais" anyway, so even by your flawed argument "paedo" is wrong too.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 10:31 PM
0

Genetic Fallacy.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 09:08 PM
0

Do you know what "trade" means?
/r/MensRights16/09/13 08:51 PM
-6

I do know what Poe's law is, thank you, however it is too often used as an excuse by unperceptive cretins who lack any kind of reading comprehension. The nature of fundamentalists is that they are vastly outnumbered by moderates. You can usually safely assume that someone is being sarcastic unless they show otherwise. There is a reason that playing along before saying "Oh shit, you're being serious?" is less embarrassing than getting up in arms and then being exposed as a twit who can't tell whe…
/r/MensRights16/09/13 04:13 AM
-6

I can't help but wonder whether or not you purposefully misspelled "you're", just to get me to point it out. Either way, it doesn't matter how difficult it is to tell whether someone is being sarcastic or not. Using "/s" completely fucking ruins it.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 03:57 AM
2

I'd gladly accept a PM if you want to talk to me. Or you could take it to a different subreddit (/r/changemyview comes to mind) so that others who are interested can take part. I know I'd probably be interested in the conversation, and might weigh in.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 03:32 AM
-14

Reddit really ought to autoshadowban people who say "/s". If you can't tell when someone is being sarcastic without them putting a neon sign on their post that says "I'M BEING SARCASTIC", you shouldn't be on the internet. Same goes for people who can't convey their sarcasm through word choice alone.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 03:27 AM
2

brigading What are you talking about, you pathetic little person?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 11:41 PM
3

Those words which I "added" followed directly and inevitably from what you actually said, and furthermore, were not claimed by me to have been your words. I will not continue to respond to you, because you are not worth my time.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 11:40 PM
0

Seriously, is it that fucking hard to give a citation?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 11:38 PM
3

Dude claims that child porn is le most heinous thing ever. Dude gets mad when Dude 2 calls him out on how ridiculous that is. Dude 3 gets up in arms, brings a load of other irrelevant and incorrect bullshit into the discussion. Dude 3 humiliates themselves by not knowing what they're talking about.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 10:02 AM
2

So you think she made child porn, do you? I repeat: [Citation. Fucking. Needed]
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:44 AM
0

she may well have abused a few children herself Too bad this wasn't a claim. You think that because you couched the claim with a couple of weasel words, it's not a claim? Christ on a fucking pogo-stick, you're a piece of work.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:33 AM
8

Putting words in my mouth, more dishonesty? I put no words in your mouth. it's also common sense There is no such thing as common sense. someone who has a sexual fantasy will attempt to act it out if given the chance You have no basis for claiming that fantasy is any more than slightly correlated to actions. Plenty of people with rape fantasies, BDSM fetishes, and other such thoughts would vehemently disagree with you. pedophiles becoming pederasts You don't know what pederasty is. It has nothin…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:30 AM
3

Come back when you graduate primary school, you dumbfuck. Without a citation, your claims are fucking worthless.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 06:24 AM
15

Seeing pictures of the holocaust doesn't inspire someone to emulate hitler. Correct. A paedophile seeing pictures of sexually abused children on the other hand... [is inspired to abuse children by seeing pictures of children being abused] Incorrect. Sexual criminals escalate The criminality of a sexual act has no bearing on whether people who are into it escalate their actions. its rare for pedarests and paedophiles to actually correct their behavior. Keep claiming things that you cannot possibl…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:01 AM
9

with people who did the SEXUAL EXPLOITING [citation needed] she may well have abused a few children herself [citation needed]
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:57 AM
18

The acts or people depicted in a picture have no bearing on whether or not it is immoral to own, trade, or look at them. There are thousands of pictures of the holocaust in circulation on the internet. There are hundreds of thousands of pictures of murder victims in circulation on the internet. Owning, trading, or looking at said pictures do not constitute complicity in the acts themselves. It's alright to be revolted by the pictures and people who take pleasure in them, but there's no need to p…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 02:26 AM
24

Yes, you're right. Trading pictures is just about the most disgusting practice known to modern man. I can see that life's moral lessons haven't been wasted on you.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:56 AM
28

At a time when too many fathers are running from their parental responsibilities, plaintiff in this case is running toward his Thanks for being a sexist shit, Boonstra.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 09:18 PM
1

So you're illiterate as well as a dishonest little shit. Alright.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 06:57 AM
-3

Circumcision was actually done on children to prevent adults from getting infections. When you live in a desert climate the chance to bathe regularly is few and far between. Yes, let's give the kid a massive cut that is probably going to get infected and kill him in order to protect him from the minute chance his penis will get infected later in life and cause him mild inconvenience. Likewise the restriction on eating animals like Pigs probably stems from the fact that until modern refrigeration…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:24 AM
2

so everyone here laughs at this kind of thing and calls the Americans retards as usual and goes on about their day :/ She didn't express an opinion on the subject. She reported on the opinions of the Swedes she interacts with. Learn to fucking read.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:13 AM
0

A problem for which there is an instant fix is not a risk.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 01:17 AM
-6

As I said, poison is not "medicine given without consent". Poison must harm the person it is given to. Furthermore, I do not weep for the loss of bodily autonomy inevitable in the securing of the bodily autonomy of another. She was the aggressor. She ignored his wishes in the matter of his own body, and if, as is the case, his only recourse happens to violate hers in turn, it's entirely on her head.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:37 PM
2

If I give you one of my paintings as a gift, does that give you the right to make copies of it to sell? Having sex is not consent, implicit or otherwise, to the free use of one's genetic material, and even if it were, the man in this situation explicitly dissented.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:32 PM
-8

But he DID poison her The difference between poison and medicine is not consent. She has no moral right to the use of his genetic material. He has every right to prevent her from using his genetic material, by force or deception if necessary.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:01 PM
1

Let me see if I have this right. You're saying that because 1 man can make as many new people as there are women available to impregnate, whereas a woman can only ever make 1 new person every 9 months, which still requires a man, that makes women somehow more valuable? Because you need more of them to do the same job, they're more valuable?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:46 AM
1

not every fad diet will work for every person. FTFY There is a diet that will work 100% of the time. It consists of burning more calories than you consume. This can be accomplished by either or both of the following two methods: 1.) Exercise in order to increase calories burnt 2.) Regulation of food intake to decrease calories consumed The "Fat Acceptance" movement is nothing more than an organized attempt by morbidly obese people who have tried the above guaranteed method and failed by vice of …
/r/MensRights13/08/13 11:27 PM
4

I wonder if these feminists would support a woman who claims that she was raped because her sexual partner lied about didn't disclose his true ethnicity.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 09:18 PM
5

Maybe Apple is using an earlier edition. I can't envision them altering entries. For one thing, there would probably be a copyright issue.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:42 PM
-1

How about instead of pretending "sexualization" is real, we grow thicker skin?
/r/MensRights10/05/13 11:35 PM
1

It would be compulsion if they threatened to up the charges if you didn't plead guilty. The only difference between "We are planning to sentence you life, but if you plea guilty we will lower it to 15 years" and "We are planning to sentence you to 15 years, but if you insist on pleading innocent we will raise it to life" is the wording. And anyway, compulsion need not be negative encouragement. Rewarding desired behavior is compulsion just the same as punishing undesired behavior. would cause a …
/r/MensRights09/05/13 01:40 PM
6

some way to let people off easier if they admit they lied so it doesn't discourage people from telling the truth. Well, there is one, but I'm of a different mind. We should get rid of plea bargains altogether, because constitutionally a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, and in my eyes, offering someone a reduced sentence in exchange for doing so constitutes compulsion. Furthermore, plea bargains are one of the primary reasons there are so many false convictions of rape, e…
/r/MensRights08/05/13 11:00 PM
1

I don't know where you get the idea that you can opt for anonymity. If that were the case, every person accused of any offense which exercises the public's sense of self-righteous bloodlust would do so. Furthermore, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a government which already ignores its own laws will be hindered in that pursuit by the presence of other laws. We must assume, for this argument to even have a point, that the state abides by its own laws. In that case, having a…
/r/MensRights03/05/13 10:43 AM
1

The right to anonymity does not imply mandatory anonymity. The government cannot force you to exercise a right, but they must allow you to do so if you wish. We already extend the right of anonymity to the prosecution. Why deny it to the defense?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 12:43 AM
1

When did I imply the whole system would be secret? You can have the trials be public without making the names public, you know.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 11:36 PM
1

So they jail your stalker but they get to carry on. They get to carry on what? Restraining orders would still apply. Also it would make running a gang from prison easier. So? That it's not in the state's interest to uphold prisoner rights is a moot point. I think anonymity should be maintained until a trial starts This would accomplish nothing. As it stands, people who have done their time and repaid their debt to society (or have simply been exonerated) have to suffer unlawful further punishmen…
/r/MensRights02/05/13 11:18 PM
1

Great. Why?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:51 PM
1

Really, if you want to go from the angle of a malicious state who ignores all their own laws, what do you think stops them from ignoring the laws currently in place about making all arrests public?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 10:51 PM
1

What is this, the middle ages? We're not talking a courier service here. You put a telephone in every cell with a copy of the yellow pages and the prisoner can call who they please. You allow prisoners use of the internet, and they can email who they please.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 09:49 AM
1

The outside world is anyone the accused or convicted wishes to contact. The onus is on the accused to make their case public because nobody else should have the right to. If I do a crime and I want to do my sentence in absolute secrecy, I should have that privilege.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 08:47 AM
1

As I said elsewhere in this thread: Having open channels of communication between those in custody and the outside world accomplishes this without resorting to keeping tabs on every defendant and convict in a publicly accessible registry.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 07:51 AM
0

Having open channels of communication between those in custody and the outside world accomplishes this without resorting to keeping tabs on every defendant and convict in a publicly accessible registry.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 05:25 AM
1

It should be complete anonymity regardless of whether one is convicted or not, for any crime. Anything less allows for vigilanteism.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 05:11 AM
3

And then they were exonerated in a court of law.
/r/MensRights25/04/13 12:05 AM
1

The effects sex has on people are not just societal. Some of them are biological mechanisms designed to regulate how people interact in groups. They cannot be erased. Many people who have nothing but casual sex would disagree with you on this point. Also many scientists. Certain types of postmodernists want to downplay biology and profess that this is mostly cultural attitudes which controls it. But that is not quite all. Culture isn't magic. It forms around how people are pushed to act. I am no…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 09:51 PM
1

Can you please reword this? I cannot parse what you are trying to say.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:30 PM
1

where they give their entire physical self to you This is a very puritanical way of looking at sex. and which can and does come with negative emotions sometimes... Primarilly resulting from said puritanical view of sex. Seriously, if we stopped romanticizing sex as if it were the culmination of love rather than just a pleasurable activity done between people who are mutually attracted or of whom one is attracted and one is compensated, most of the problems related to sex would go away.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:49 PM
0

Then link them...
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:13 PM
4

Please cite your claim, cause I'm not buying it, if only because it runs precisely counter to my own experience.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:44 PM
2

And how is she to get the fuck over it? By getting the fuck over it. It's quite straightforward.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:51 AM
0

Why? The person accused of the rape didn't get that luxury.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 08:16 AM
3

The "child" is now 18.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 12:10 AM
4

Ah. I had overlooked that.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 10:25 AM
-20

How did you go about figuring that the woman victim doesn't go through the same 18 years of slavery as the man victim?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:53 AM
12

between 1 and 2*
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:50 AM
7

If 15 months is more than 10% of your age, you are younger than 12.5 years old, and shouldn't be having sex at all.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:42 PM
1

The point /u/typhonblue is making is very simple. Choice requires that at least two options are given. If you are in an ice cream parlor, and they only serve strawberry ice cream, it doesn't matter that you may have wanted strawberry ice cream anyway, you are still not being given a choice. That some men would consent to fatherhood if given the option doesn't mean they aren't being denied freedom of choice. The comparison to slavery is apt, even if it lacks perspective and is a little offensive.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:35 PM
1

Was not expecting 소녀시대 in this sub...
/r/MensRights04/02/13 06:06 AM
3

Feminists have no clue about anything, including feminism. FTFY
/r/MensRights29/12/12 11:35 AM
2

That's because nothing rhymes with "angina".
/r/MensRights29/12/12 09:29 AM
2

I don't agree. Deferring to someone based solely on their age relative to yours is not courtesy, it's just ridiculous. Allowing the old and infirm to have your seat is not courtesy, it's decency. As for addressing them with respect, well I'd say that it would be courteous to address everyone you meet with respect unless they have actively earned your scorn.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 04:59 AM
2

It's just common courtesy. If someone is walking behind you and you just let the door slam in their face it's unbelievably rude.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 10:28 PM
10

Actually it's not "David", it's "Dudu" (which is apparently a common Israeli shortening of "Daniel"). Still, he didn't say he was Jewish, he merely adopted a Jewish sounding name, and it wasn't just to sleep with her, it was so he could fit into society better without being the victim of prejudice (how ironic). Sabbar Kashur wanted to be a person, a person like everybody else. But as luck would have it, he was born Palestinian. It happens. His chances of being accepted as a human being in Israel…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 08:54 AM
8

It's actually more fucked up than that. He didn't say he was Jewish, he just said his name was "David", and the woman merely assumed he was Jewish.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:49 AM
-1

I wouldn't exactly call it calligraphic, but it's perfectly legible.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 03:40 AM
3

It could also be discrimination of able people by non-able people. An example would be that many people with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders such as Asperger's think that "neurotypicals" are inferior; that autism is indicative of intelligence or imagination that "neurotypicals" lack.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 12:16 AM
1

It's built into any web browser worth a damn. If your handicap prevents a large amount of people from taking you seriously, and there are easy-to-use tools to help you counteract that, why not do it? Because you think they're stupid for caring about spelling? Like it or not, spelling is often a very obvious indicator of a lack of intelligence. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but it is often enough the case to warrant a bit of prejudice on the part of the average reader. If …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 07:31 AM
1

Nobody is saying she should lose the money for cheating, which for all intents and purposes she didn't. What she did was defame someone's character and invite anyone who knows about her claim but not about her recantation to punish him for a rape he didn't commit. For that he should be recompensed and it should come out of her pocket.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:54 AM
0

It's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to make an occasional mistake, especially if they are self-admittedly bad at spelling. However, when one makes errors as often as you, it's hard to take them seriously. You should get the little red squiggly lines under misspelled words. It takes a simple retype, or if necessary, a few clicks to correct any misspelled word. When you don't bother doing this ever, especially when you make about 20 mistakes per comment, it gives the impression that you ei…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:48 AM
1

B- but... "victim" implies innocence. If the man had become violent first we'd call the woman the victim.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:33 AM
6

Spot on the money.
/r/MensRights25/09/12 08:07 PM
1

Stop misspelling "legal".
/r/MensRights15/09/12 11:43 PM
2

It's Freshman year of High School. Which is basically Middle School.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 11:34 PM
2

But Lupin/Snape has a more interesting dynamic...
/r/MensRights12/07/12 05:23 AM
2

I'd prefer Lupin/Snape please.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 03:07 PM
2

i like money. I have no doubt. I am, however, surprised (and unconvinced) that anyone pays you to write for them, given the abundance of functionally anonymous, aesthetically depressing fanfiction it is possible for them to plagiarize from.
/r/MensRights11/07/12 02:51 PM
2

QuixoticTendencies said: I've known dogs to produce more attractive prose with their excrement. gqbrielle said: i write shit for a living. … Oh come on. Don't make it too easy for me…
/r/MensRights11/07/12 11:25 AM
3

I actually find it a little heartwarming that you think the above is good writing. I've known dogs to produce more attractive prose with their excrement.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 01:36 PM
4

I have read a great many of your comments now, and I must say 3 things. a.)You are not smart. To be honest, the immensity of your unmitigated, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing stupidity simply boggles the mind. b.) You are also about as funny as an outbreak of the plague. c.) "They recognized this weird thing called" is not a clever way to begin your rebuttal. It does, in fact, fail spectacularly to roll off of the tongue, and you should feel absolutely ashamed.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 01:23 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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