Ruskerdax Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
3	Josie raped me... but I forgive her Some of us are trans-rapists, shitlord.	/r/MensRights	22/06/17 04:17 AM
16	Old but gold Schrödinger's rapist?	/r/MensRights	19/06/17 03:59 PM
2	I have no words for this No kidding. The people who do this should seriously fear death. If this kind of thing ever happened to me, they better never let me out of jail because people are going to die.	/r/MensRights	16/07/16 10:59 AM
22	Obama calls for end to female genital mutilation in Africa while US has highest rates of male circumcision You mean all of them?	/r/MensRights	30/07/15 11:04 AM
-2	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. How is this tumblr content? Are you retarded?	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 10:37 AM
0	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. Alimony is payment to a spouse following a divorce. Community property is a state's interpretation of property ownership in a marriage. The rate and duration at which alimony is paid is completely irrelevant to what I have been talking about.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 06:18 AM
-1	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. This is like arguing with a feminist Funny, I was going to say the same thing.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 04:31 AM
-1	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. They are two different concepts, but community property, when applied in cases like this, effectively is alimony.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 04:12 AM
-2	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. boo hoo I can't read	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 02:04 AM
0	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. The money was given to the wife, and in an arbitrary court decision, it was retroactively decided that the husband was entitled to half of the money. Retroactive, because the money wasn't given to the wife and the husband, even if the court decided later that's how it should have been interpreted.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 02:04 AM
0	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. The California lottery commission did not give her the winnings. It gave them their winnings, because that is the law in the state. No, the State of California retroactively decided that, based on arbitrary bureaucratic decision, the wife's lottery winnings should have been the husband's property also — hence, alimony. The California Lottery Commission granted that money to the wife in an arrangement wholly separate from community property law. The husband wasn't even aware of the lottery winnin…	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:50 AM
-1	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. Considering that the state laws about community property are in the same state as the one regulating the state lottery, it does. No, it does not. Someone is only the owner of something if they created it or it was given to them. Neither of those things applied to the lottery money, so the husband did not own that money. Just because a judge arbitrarily declared otherwise does not make it true. She agreed to those same laws when she bought the lottery ticket. Oh, okay, well that should be pretty …	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:37 AM
0	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. I'm saying "community property" laws are not only a violation of property rights, but also an example of alimony (an allowance made to one spouse by the other for support pending or after legal separation or divorce) when applied in this case. The law of California may claim that the husband "legally" owned half of the money, but that doesn't make it true. The wife won the lottery and did not choose to give it to her husband, therefor the wife should not be obligated to do so. She never agreed t…	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:28 AM
-1	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. I didn't claim that they were.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:20 AM
-2	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I am saying that alimony is fucked up because most of the time when it is imposed on a divorced spouse it is done so without either party having agreed to a contract that stipulates that. In fact, it often overrides prenuptial agreements, which is even more fucked. This a clear example of alimony, by the way, even if you think this lady is being a greedy shit about it.	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:19 AM
-4	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. Full Definition of ALIMONY 1: an allowance made to one spouse by the other for support pending or after legal separation or divorce Are you so desperate to disagree with me that you couldn't read two inches below that, or are you being intentionally deceitful by making a false appeal to semantics?	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:15 AM
-2	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. Oh, okay, so it should be pretty easy to show me where it is then, right?	/r/MensRights	01/05/15 01:13 AM
-11	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. http://i.word.com/idictionary/alimony Please show me where on a California marriage license it says you agree to give your spouse half of your property if you divorce.	/r/MensRights	30/04/15 06:10 PM
-7	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. She was a sneak that had money stolen from her, just like husbands have money stolen from them every time a state declares they owe money to their divorced wife without there being an express written contract, often in violation of prenuptial agreements.	/r/MensRights	30/04/15 06:04 PM
-16	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. The state of California violates the property rights of everyone who lives there by arbitrarily declaring assets of married couples to be "community property." Her winning the lottery while they are married shouldn't obligate her to give any of it to her husband unless she had a prior contract explicitly stating she would do so. This is alimony because it's income being taken from one spouse and given to another following divorce, presumably without there being any contract to do so.	/r/MensRights	30/04/15 06:02 PM
-12	A woman won $1.3 million lottery.She hid it from her husband and immediately divorced him to avoid giving him half. He found out and sued. Due a Family Code statute that penalizes spouses for falsifying data about their property during divorce, judge ordered her to give him 100% of the winnings. That guy wasn't any more entitled to his wife's lottery winnings than women are entitled to their husband's income after divorce. Alimony is bullshit. Edit: /r/mensrights rabidly and desperately defends theft if it's a man using the law to steal from a woman for a change. Bring on the downvotes, hypocrites!	/r/MensRights	30/04/15 05:53 PM
4	Women now control more than HALF of US wealth. They're robots, shitlord.	/r/MensRights	18/04/15 08:07 AM
2	Anita Sarkeesian on the Marysville school shooting Victimized is a very specific word, and I think it's accurately applied if you use it describe someone being threatened with death for making a public appearance (assuming the threats weren't fabricated by herself or a friend, which is entirely possible). Assuming they aren't made up, those threats are coercion, which is demonstrably harmful and wrong. That she uses social engineering to garner sympathy and elevate herself and her stupid cause is irrelevant. I still have compassion for people I …	/r/MensRights	25/10/14 12:07 PM
2	Anita Sarkeesian on the Marysville school shooting Compassion is sympathetic pity. I have sympathetic pity for someone who is victimized by others, even if I disagree with the things they say and recognize their behavior has the potential to antagonize scumbags.	/r/MensRights	25/10/14 11:29 AM
4	Anita Sarkeesian on the Marysville school shooting Recognizing that someone is doing something stupid or dangerous doesn't mean you shouldn't feel compassion for them when bad things happen to them, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're to blame when the bad things that happen to them are a result of other peoples' malice.	/r/MensRights	25/10/14 08:02 AM
10	Anita Sarkeesian on the Marysville school shooting Anita Sarkeesian makes thousands of dollars as a result of these statements and the controversy that's drummed up by them. In order to believe she isn't doing this on purpose, you'd have to believe she is savvy enough to create her video content and maintain a strong social media presence, but also so extremely self-unaware as to be considered borderline mentally retarded. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it seems implausible.	/r/MensRights	25/10/14 07:55 AM
9	Introducing SheRides: a taxi service that discriminates against male drivers and passengers. Why? It's fucking stupid, sure, but who are you to stop bigots from ruining their own businesses?	/r/MensRights	28/09/14 08:15 AM
3	Boy breaks up fight between two girls. Police come. First reaction? Tase the boy! He's in a coma with life screwed up, probably facing charges. I don't think this is an issue unique to men. The same thing is liable to happen when anyone tries to break up fights between anyone, regardless of gender - the police come in, arrest / tase / shoot everyone in sight, and often the person trying to improve the situation gets fucked. I don't think I would be dissuaded from stepping in to break up a fight, but I acknowledge that by doing so I put myself at risk, most likely from the police when they inevitably turn up. Maybe if men (and women) sto…	/r/MensRights	07/05/14 02:42 PM
0	An anti-circumcision post made it to front page of reddit and r/bestof. Then it got censored. Maybe I didn't write it clearly, but that is the point I was trying to make. Authoritarianism / statism uses the facade of left / right, but neither really matter, only freedom of speech.	/r/MensRights	17/04/14 02:05 AM
-6	An anti-circumcision post made it to front page of reddit and r/bestof. Then it got censored. I get why you're saying it, but I don't think it's a leap in logic. Censorship is inherently leftist. It's also right wing. If your political "philosophy" can be summed up in a left / right dichotomy, you are supporting masters who employ censorship as a tactic to silence detractors.	/r/MensRights	16/04/14 09:12 PM
1	'Old guys' not welcome at Queens University Off the top of my head, there is Meg Lanker-Simons, who sent herself rape threats. http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/feminist-meg-lanker-simons-famous-university-of-wyoming-rape-threat-hoaxer-accepts-plea-deal/	/r/MensRights	12/04/14 08:33 PM
1	I...don't believe this. I think it's indicating that rape is intrinsically linked with anger issues, but you have a good point.	/r/MensRights	11/03/14 11:54 PM
1	I...don't believe this. It's a little dated, but there's nothing I've seen that would indicate that statistic has changed much.	/r/MensRights	11/03/14 10:45 PM
7	I...don't believe this. "80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes" Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978. "Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers." D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.	/r/MensRights	11/03/14 07:34 PM
1	Boys are bullied to suicide all the time, but 2 girls do it and finally the government passes anti-bullying laws It's funny how you're called "evil" and downvoted because you don't think the solution is automatically more police involvement. Look at the way boys are disenfranchised every day by overzealous authority figures every day following draconian zero-tolerance policies and bureaucratic abuse. I guess the solution should be MORE of the same, and you're EVIL for disagreeing?	/r/MensRights	21/11/13 05:43 PM
1	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... Reading comprehension appears to be a serious problem for you. Maybe if I try to clarify some things it will somehow get through your very thick skull. "It's stupid!", favorite argument of five year olds. Please do better. I see you've missed the part where I said I wasn't arguing or engaging in any kind of debate with you, but simply calling your opinion stupid. Maybe you're under the belief for some reason that anyone who thinks another persons' opinions are stupid is childish. That would make…	/r/MensRights	29/05/13 07:22 PM
0	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... If you choose to revert to ad hominems rather than arguing the point, it certainly suggests you disagree because of a visceral emotional reaction. Or it could just be that your opinion is stupid, and as such, not something I feel like taking the time to debate with you. I'm not "reverting" to ad hominem (perhaps you mean "resorting?") and I would be perfectly capable of arguing with you if I felt the need. I don't, though. It's perfectly possible for someone stupid to be right, so no, it's not r…	/r/MensRights	29/05/13 02:20 PM
1	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... No thanks. Just because I'm not going to argue with someone's stupid opinion doesn't make me wrong. That's a popular belief among stupid people (and that's not an ad hominem, by the way, because I was calling your intelligence into question - something directly related to the topic at hand.)	/r/MensRights	29/05/13 08:21 AM
-1	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... My issue was less about their poor word choice and more about the stupid gun comment.	/r/MensRights	29/05/13 06:22 AM
2	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... Haha, I love how much your response demonstrates the point. That is quite an illogical assumption to make.	/r/MensRights	28/05/13 10:06 PM
6	So the feminists at my uni have opened up a women's only space... Just not with logic, darling.	/r/MensRights	28/05/13 08:49 PM
3	Man gets contacted by first kiss years later, she accuses him of rape [Xpost r/relationships] Because nobody cares if men are raped.	/r/MensRights	19/12/12 09:53 PM
4	Was there a specific moment and/or issue that inspired you to get involved with men's rights? Especially when it would have likely added a criminal record to his sexual assault.	/r/MensRights	18/12/12 02:17 PM
1	Whoopi Goldberg on woman's spitting and assault of Cleveland bus driver: "Women have this idea that you can hit and punch on a man .. and it's ok and he's not going to hit you back. Those days are gone". As an NRA certified instructor, I would like to know who your CCW instructor is.	/r/MensRights	16/10/12 10:56 PM
1	Whoopi Goldberg on woman's spitting and assault of Cleveland bus driver: "Women have this idea that you can hit and punch on a man .. and it's ok and he's not going to hit you back. Those days are gone". You are incorrect, and not in a position to comment on the quality of my advice. Any CCW class will teach you that it is stupendously irresponsible to draw a firearm if you are not going to fire it. If you are not shooting your weapon, you are not justified in escalating a situation with your gun. Trying to do so will get you killed or imprisoned. The only exception to this is if you are a police officer.	/r/MensRights	16/10/12 10:16 PM
1	Whoopi Goldberg on woman's spitting and assault of Cleveland bus driver: "Women have this idea that you can hit and punch on a man .. and it's ok and he's not going to hit you back. Those days are gone". If you're not willing to use deadly force, then your life is not sufficiently in danger to draw a gun. Why would you draw a gun in any circumstance and not fire it? Trying to diffuse the situation is EXTREMELY dangerous, so much so that a court will likely (as has happened many times) find that you were not justified in pointing it at someone. Drawing a gun and NOT firing it is dumb. Do you know how many people have had their guns turned on them with this line of thinking?	/r/MensRights	16/10/12 08:38 PM
0	Whoopi Goldberg on woman's spitting and assault of Cleveland bus driver: "Women have this idea that you can hit and punch on a man .. and it's ok and he's not going to hit you back. Those days are gone". As I understand it, in almost every state in the US, you are not allowed to draw a firearm unless you use it. If you've drawn a firearm and haven't shot someone, a court will likely find that you were not in sufficient danger to have drawn it in the first place, and you can be convicted of menacing. If you fear for your life enough to bring a firearm into the equation, you should be shooting it immediately.	/r/MensRights	16/10/12 01:40 PM
5	Sometimes we need to remember that oppressive gender roles hurt everybody. (x-post from 2x) That's not entirely true. This is a CrimeThink poster, and that group is very pro-feminist.	/r/MensRights	30/05/12 08:50 PM
1	No Shave November. Why is it that Unix administration aptitude is directly proportional to length / haggardness of beard?	/r/MensRights	02/11/11 01:57 PM
1	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". Why would you assume, with no other evidence to suggest it, that someone who exclusively desires the rape of children as a form of sexual contact has such huge qualms with it? Why would you go even further and assume that the majority of people who only desire rape of children would never do so? The desire to have sexual contact with children in the first place (rape by definition) is a mental disorder, accompanied by other clearly identifiable traits and dysfunctional behavior patterns. It does…	/r/MensRights	31/10/11 10:32 AM
1	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". But the "rape" portion is a side-effect. They don't want to rape people, they're not rapists. They just happen to desire people who cannot legally consent to sexual relations. But, due to the fact that they aren't rapists, they avoid actually raping someone. This is silly. Are you suggesting that there are large groups of pedophiles who fantasize exclusively about children sexually, get off exclusively to thoughts of raping them, watch videos of others raping them, but somehow do not want to rap…	/r/MensRights	29/10/11 05:47 PM
10	What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 10:48 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". The possibility exists that those woman could consent to sex with you. Not so for a pedophile - they desire rape or non-consensual sexual contact exclusively. If you told me that the only way you could fulfill your sexual desires was through rape, and that there is a whole group of you rape-o-sexuals that felt this way, I would be skeptical of your being completely harmless as well, and with good reason.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 10:38 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". The desires most people repress do not involve the harm of others... unless they do, in which case that person is considered homicidal and dangerous. Why are you making an exception for pedophiles, who specifically desire sex with children (thus harming them)?	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 09:55 PM
0	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". On the contrary, only pedophiles molest children, and (whether due to selection bias or not) most pedophiles who are known to exist have molested children. You are the one making the claim that the majority pedophiles are harmless.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 09:45 PM
-1	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". Yes, I'm aware that not every single person who is a pedophile is going to molest children, but I think the assumption that most pedophiles are harmless and would never hurt children is naive and unfounded.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 09:09 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". Homosexuals who go their entire lives living deep inside the closet, never even making sexual contact with a man are far outside the norm. I'm not suggesting it's impossible for there to be pedophiles who never have touched children, but why do so many assume that most pedophiles are just completely harmless?	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 09:08 PM
1	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". I don't know about anyone else, but I downvoted you for staring your comment with "LOL."	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 08:28 PM
0	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". The AMA would be anecdotal evidence (as in, not real scientific evidence), and beyond that, it is most likely a fake AMA. I'm also unaware of any studies of that kind, and I doubt anyone else claiming there are huge groups of harmless pedophiles is either.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 08:25 PM
-3	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". Do you really believe that homosexuals are mentally deficient in some way due to who they're sexually attracted to as the whole of the professional medical community supported not more than 100 years ago? We are arguing about whether or not pedophiles go on to touch children. Regardless of whether ancient versions of the DSM included homosexuality as a mental disorder, you will probably not find anyone suggesting that there are tons of homosexuals who do not have sex with other men. For your las…	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 08:22 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". You are pedophile by any definition of the word if you molest or have sex with children. Pedophiles are also the only group of people who do molest children, by definition. Already we can establish that if you are a pedophile (someone who is attracted to children, regardless of definition) you are much, much more likely to be someone who molests children. Where is this evidence that there are all these people who are sexually attracted to children but don't touch act on it? I'm not saying they d…	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 08:11 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". How about the fact that non-pedophiles don't molest children?	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 07:55 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". Desiring money is not a mental disorder. Pedophilia is.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 07:40 PM
-2	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". The difference here is that pedophilia is a recognized mental disorder, not simply something a person enjoys, like a hobby, interest, or sexual fetish. As a group, pedophiles are defined by their exclusive sexual attraction to children, something which dominates their sexual drive. According to the DSM, in order to be diagnosed with pedophilia, one must have either acted on their attraction (molested a child) or have their attraction cause serious interpersonal difficulties. Maybe, then, you are…	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 07:39 PM
3	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". You're describing selection bias, but I do not think that applies here. If nearly every pedophile who was ever caught molesting a child described this similar pattern of rationalization (I believe it has been noted that they do), wouldn't it also make sense that there are many more who are doing the same? What evidence suggests that there are many more pedophiles who absolutely DO NOT touch kids, and never would? This despite the extremely powerful sexual urges they feel, and their ability to ex…	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 05:16 PM
13	Female pedophile posts AmA: Reddit responds with "nice". What makes you believe that "pedophiles on average would never harm a child, especially on a sexual scale?" I've never heard this from any medical professional. In fact, a common trait among pedophiles is the rationalization and self-delusion that they are not harming children when they molest them.	/r/MensRights	27/10/11 03:46 PM