TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheRealPariah Archive

View 0 posts and 2,821 comments by TheRealPariah 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,821 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Sure you are. and you also would have to suffer through the complication in the first place, where as if you were cut, there wouldn't be a risk of that. Over a hundred babies die a year from complications from male genital cutting. Many more suffer other complications. There is a risk. This dialogue is going nowhere.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:16 AM
2

The circumcision being talked about is done on newborns. This is called "moving the goalpost," and it's dishonest and manipulative rhetoric.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:13 AM
0

The user was talking about infants.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 07:30 AM
1

I think you're both overestimating the importance of the ear and underestimating the importance of a foreskin. I think the reason is because you were circumcised and are looking to rationalize it. Also, there are plenty of negative risks later in life associated with not circumcising as well. You can always remove the foreskin if it's necessary. You cannot put it back on once it's removed.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 07:27 AM
0

Being a woman should only be used to discriminate when it works in your benefit, duh.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:59 PM
1

For infants?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:50 PM
5

We get it, you were circumcised. we're talking about foreskin Um, foreskins are really important. They both protect the penis (especially at a younger age), provide manual lubrication to make sex or masturbation more comfortable, and they contain a large number of nerve endings. This doesn't even mention the negative risks at the time and later in life due to circumcision. Where did you get the idea that it's "merely a foreskin"?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:43 PM
1

Now you're just being a drama queen. I don't think you're a scumbag terrorist if you support circumcision, I think you're a person willing to painfully cut off important bits of their childrens' bodies for cultural reasons.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 04:39 PM
0

Sure, I agree, but this isn't a formal debate, it's a discussion on the internet where support for any number of statements is at your fingertips. "Source!" seems to replace a reasonable discussion and is a de facto response for the lazy. Keep the downvotes coming keyboard warriors. You really showed me!
/r/MensRights22/01/14 01:23 AM
28

The right crowd? Male deprecating humor is a bread-and-butter routine.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 06:07 AM
-14

If that's true, that puts you ahead of most. I tire of people demanding someone provide them a source when they can easily look it up themselves, it evidences a desire to be more interested in bicker and arguing instead of learning. Apart from that, it's often considered rude to make a claim and then brush off someone who asks you to substantiate it. I didn't make the claim. This place is one of the most downvote-happy subReddits on this site.
/r/MensRights21/01/14 05:58 AM
-41

Did you try Google?
/r/MensRights21/01/14 04:21 AM
8

It's the privilege. Honestly, the reactions of some women when they're actually treated like they were men is quite entertaining. It's hard not for them to trip over themselves desperately trying to make sure everyone knows they're actually women.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:05 AM
0

No, I want to stay home, have my dream "job," barely actually work, be taken care of and I do not want to suffer any negative consequences from it. She was fine her husband supported both of them while she played around for 25 years and now she deserves to be taken care of "in the lifestyle they're accustomed to."
/r/MensRights19/01/14 08:01 AM
2

and are more likely to vote.
/r/MensRights02/01/14 06:58 PM
1

This happened in Fullerton, California, USA.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 12:33 PM
3

Three boys were charged as was the girl who originally threw the party and allowed the group to leave in her parent's car. Two of the boys charged were drivers with the girl in the car. The third boy was the last passenger in the car before the girl drove. This article, like a lot of articles on Yahoo!, is missing and confusing facts. Clearly being a passive inactive viewer of the situation is not the charge. The third boy who was a passenger the entire time was charged with reckless endangermen…
/r/MensRights09/12/13 03:53 AM
2

I actually haven't read anything which claims the charge relies on the belief that they should have prevented the girl from driving. It seems the charges are for the boys operating a vehicle while intoxicated themselves. I worry this is actually a case of lay people in the media running wild on a mix of law and police statements they don't understand.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 06:59 AM
5

No one needed to detain her to prevent this tragedy. You're right. She could have chosen not to drive with a .27 BAC.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 06:55 AM
44

I'll be waiting for your defense of a male that attacks a female for "talking trash" to get him to the point that he punches her in the face. I suspect you won't.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:42 AM
55

So what if he was "goading" her? They were bantering and the girl physically attacked him.
/r/MensRights01/12/13 11:38 AM
2

The last 10 years of a man's life is likewise probably more expensive than the 20-30 before it.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 01:48 AM
7

You could argue that, but without actual evidence that these increased visits in younger years actually reduces the amount of long-term healthcare costs I'm going to chalk it up as rampant speculation based on rather shaky assumptions. On average, women will spend ~35% more on healthcare during their lives than men. Women are charged quite a bit more in their younger years because, on average, they spend much more money than men in similar situations. Women are akin to the accident-prone drivers…
/r/MensRights14/11/13 05:55 AM
1

you didn't claim that anywhere I know. you merely refused to acknowledge that "holding [this judge] responsible" for the execution of this warrant would entail holding him accountable for the mistakes of others. It doesn't just like a doctor is not liable if his nurse does something negligent while doing a procedure the doctor ordered. You should have caught on to that when I wrote, "Did you stop and think that, perhaps, I thought judges should be accountable similarly to lawyers or doctors?" Th…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:55 PM
1

Run along now kiddo. Adults are talking.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 09:03 PM
1

Well, I'm glad you abandoned the facially nonsensical claim that "judges wouldn't issue any warrants." Although, you didn't let that stop you sticking your foot in your mouth. If they have a vested interest in any aspect of it, You mean, like, if they were personally liable for doing something which was unlawful? Um, okay. It seems pretty perverse that a judge negligently issuing warrants which cause harm to people should be entirely immune for the harm they negligently caused. If you tell a jud…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:46 PM
1

Where did I claim this judge should be held accountable for the execution of this warrant? If you cannot read or understand my comments, I'm going to simply ignore you.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 04:51 PM
2

Did you stop and think that, perhaps, I thought judges should be accountable similarly to lawyers or doctors?
/r/MensRights06/11/13 04:06 PM
3

Everyone else doesn't enjoy immunity for the harms they cause, yet we still have lawyers taking cases, doctors performing surgeries, nurses doing minor procedures, engineers designing buildings, etc., all of which has some risk and all of which are not certain. Why, exactly, should cops, judges, and prosecutors not be held to the same standard? There simply isn't a satisfactory answer to this question. The real reason is because judges and their minions want the immunity based on a silly reading…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 12:11 PM
2

This is interesting: why am I accountable for my actions (even mistakes), but judges and cops should not be allowed? It's amazing that doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc., are all personally accountable for their actions yet we still see lawyers taking cases and doctors performing surgeries.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 12:03 PM
1

every judge would be extremely cautious in issuing warrants Good. We could stand a huge swing in the opposite direction. Alternatively, we could simply make officers and judges personally liable for damages they cause. Remove official immunity now and judges and cops will be much more cautious in the harm they cause others. This is interesting: why am I accountable for my actions (even mistakes), but judges and cops should not be accoutable? It's amazing that doctors, lawyers, nurses, etc., are …
/r/MensRights06/11/13 11:59 AM
1

A man set himself on fire outside a courthouse in New Hampshire. His name was Thomas Ball.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 06:19 PM
2

You can do whatever you like; you don't "have to" start doing anything; it is simply good manners to call people whatever they identify as. If the guy identifies as male, I would refer to him as a male.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 04:27 AM
11

Oh, you're not remotely interested in a genuine discussion. I suspected that, but thank you for confirming it early so I don't waste any more time on you.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:36 AM
14

FRMI brainscans. Male and female brains are different. MtF transgendered women's brains look more like female brains than male brains. It largely depends on how you define sex and gender. While they certainly do have X and Y chromosomes, their brains appear to be female. It's certainly easy to claim, "X and Y means you are male," but it doesn't account for even biological differences let alone sociological differences of gender.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 04:29 AM
1

Benevolence is about intent. Nearly all authoritarians have good intentions. I disagree with your characterization of authoritarian regimes; Singapore is filthy rich. Rich countries typically function pretty well. It didn't become filthy rich because of authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes do function well in comparison to other systems of government in similar circumstances, but they do so at the cost of something which many people hold dear.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 09:59 PM
6

The city might be authoritarian but if they are, they are the most benevolent authoritarians I've heard of. That is to say: the city runs very well. So if the state runs well, the authoritarian is "benevolent"? So what if they stamp down on opponents, jail activists, execute drug dealers, and beat children.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:35 AM
2

Everything won't remain constant. But removing it and holding everything constant will hurt a lot of struggling individuals Short term pain is better than long term dependency... besides, it's unsustainable anyway so we're both going to see how much it will hurt after generational dependency. There are really no "ideal" choices at this point. Edit: Of course, real solutions would require radical change. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I'll leave that for perhaps another time. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:37 PM
3

This isn't really an economics argument, it's a political economy argument. but I don't agree with the way that labor is valued and compensated in our corporatist economy Another thing we agree on. so I believe a welfare state is a moral necessity until we change that. The welfare state furthers the interests of the corporatist one. Why do you think Walmart can pay their employees nothing? Because we all have to subsidize that wage. Walmart loves the welfare state.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:30 PM
2

You've completely abandoned your original points anyway. Now you're going to more honest, and better, arguments (i.e., the interests of a fetuses don't matter anyway). This is a valid argument and opinion; next time start with this one.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:23 PM
2

You edited this comment after I responded. If we're breaking out the bold, I'm definitely going to edit.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:18 PM
2

Welcome to being an adult. However, I emphathize with the situations of women who end up pregnant with no good means to raise their children. Me too. In some cases, they can get help from their family or the government, or participate in a successful private adoption. ... in the vast majority of cases. Neither are a great way to live. I don't disagree, but "not being a great way to live" is not even in the same ballpark as "more humane to not exist." We can easily deduce this by simply asking pe…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:12 PM
2

Would you have preferred to not be born than any of the above correctly described situations? Would you have preferred to not be born if there was a 1%, 10%, 75%, 100% chance you would be subject to any of the above scenarios? I think if you're honest, you will answer "of course not." I understand that your value judgements are different It's not that my value judgments are different than yours, it's that you have nothing to actually base your judgments on beyond, "all my ethics rolled into onem…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:46 PM
1

Well if you're automatically suspicious of the words of people who have worked at PP I'm not, but I will call out purposefully misleading, selectively released statistics if they're proffered. And I will also call out "really good articles" which do the exact same thing with a similar agenda. non-profit organization and so all of this discussion about "business" and "profit" should be reconsidered with that in mind. Non-profit doesn't mean no one makes money. The workers, the organizers, the adm…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:38 PM
2

What do you base your belief on that it's inhumane to abort the child? I never said it was inhumane to abort the child, I questioned your claim that it was "more humane" to kill a fetus than to allow them to live and grow on welfare or otherwise in a fosterhome. My opinion comes from all of my ethical beliefs combined. So essentially a vague platitude that means nothing. You might as well just say, "because." It's fine, this is the response I expected. I don't see a developing fetus as equivalen…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:35 PM
1

The first 18 years they do not produce anything at all. And if people only lived 18 years on average, that would be enough. You're completely missing an entire side of the economic calculation. If this is a legitimate argument, so would be a legitimate argument against the production of anything. After all, it would be cheaper not to produce cars than produce cars if we don't account for the productive use of the car. Do you have a more balanced overview of what PP provides? Not really, I cannot…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:17 PM
2

And yes, I believe it's more humane to abort an unwanted child before it becomes a full, living child if you can't give the child the resources and care that the child needs. First, the child gets welfare to provide much of the services (which also provides somewhat for the caretaker). Second, the choice is not only between "killing the fetus" and "birth mother must take care of unwanted child." There is also adoption. Third, what experience do you have or methodology do you use to make the judg…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:10 PM
1

Abortion is the only thing mentioned in this comment and a number of people seriously think PP is some abortion factory so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to address the fact that PP does more than abortions. It apparently conducts ~350,000 abortions a year. It's certainly in the abortion business. I couldn't find stats on the profit on an abortion compared to other services, but my guess is abortions are more profitable than pregnancy and STD tests. As for the rest of your post, simply st…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:57 PM
3

I'm not for or against the prohibition on abortion, but some of these points are outright irrational. So what if it's cheaper than paying for welfare for some of the unwanted children? If you're going to make a statement like this, you should also account for the benefits and costs the prospective human would bestow upon society. If the average aborted fetus would have paid more in taxes than the welfare benefits (not to mention everything else they produce and the inherent value in their life t…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:46 PM
1

The OC didn't claim nor insinuate that they only do abortions, he only insinuated that they do them and tax payers shouldn't be forced to pay for them. Do you have statistics which account for the different costs between abortions and other "services/procedures"? Simply stating the percentage of total services/procedures is unhelpful for the claims you want to make (i.e., PP is not in the abortion business) and stinks of an attempt to mislead. It would be ridiculous to eat a 10 gallon container …
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:29 PM
0

You mean the killing of fetuses to decrease future welfare costs? That point has it's own flaws, like, for instance, weighing the amount of welfare paid for/to the perspective human compared to how much they produce, taxes they pay, other positive benefits to society and people in general, etc. If you have statistics which account for these things (i.e., the expected net benefit of the average aborted human minus the welfare costs paid), I would be glad to see it. Otherwise, It's sort of just a …
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:01 PM
2

Money can be used to pay for anything and fund anything(i.e., it's fungible). Your donating money earmarked specifically for non-abortion and non-abortion accessories doesn't mean much as you will simply cover the cost of other services (overhead) and freeing other money up to pay for abortions. One dollar is the same as another dollar.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 12:38 PM
0

And if money wasn't fungible, this would be a good point.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 12:26 PM
3

It's okay. You're still a man even with a mutilated penis. You don't have to desperately lash out trying to convince us all that you are still masculine and a man. This response screams insecurity and lashing out so loudly I think we just made first contact with an alien species. like women chopping off their whole fucking 9 inches of husbands dicks just because they feel like it). And if that was a socially accepted norm which happens to millions of men annually, you may have a point, however, …
/r/MensRights11/08/13 07:13 AM
3

despite people like you who would rather shove their fingers in their ears than admit there is a problem If he admits there is a problem, he thinks he must admit there is a problem with him, his body is mutilated, and that the people closest to him, his parents, did it to him. That is why so many circumcised males respond in this manner. Look at him desperately try to establish his masculinity because he feels his masculinity is questioned.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 07:10 AM
1

Then why bother making a rule about it in the first place?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 02:07 PM
6

Nothing quite as ironic as a feminist lambasting you for not living up to a masculine gender role.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:01 AM
2

Unfortunately, these tactics are effective because most humans are dumb and easily swayed by emotional non-arguments. ... by women. Mileage varies significantly depending on who is the person spouting the emotional non-arguments.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:55 AM
-1

And what part of that desire forced you to delete your comments? I think we all know there was a little something more than simply not wishing to continue the dialogue. In the future, if you don't really know what you're talking about you should probably skip opining.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 08:51 PM
-1

Why did you delete your comments?
/r/MensRights06/07/13 07:20 PM
-1

Okay, so you're a lawyer? I saw this very case argued in court get thrown out for lack of evidence. Did you mean relevance? I hope so. What state? In either case, I sincerely doubt it... but this is the internet where you can throw out whatever unprovable nonsense you like. Even if true, individual judges make erroneous decisions all the time... especially when it comes to evidentiary ones. Does the fact that he was speeding 5 miles away make it more or less likely that he was negligent when the…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:22 PM
0

What do you base this opinion on? The fact that the light was at once one point green, does not mean that in the instant you attempted to cross the intersection it was not in fact red. But it does have e tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. And it is of consequence as the thing it makes more or less probable is the main issue in contention.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 11:52 AM
1

The type that thinks those who produce more should be paid more? You spotted me.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 12:57 PM
2

In the garbageman scenario, should someone be paid less one week because the total weight of their route is less than someone elses? Yes. If you aren't doing the same amount of work, you aren't doing the "same job." Whoever produces more should be paid more.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 07:23 AM
1

Some court judgments are dischargeable. It depends on the type of claim filed. For instance, most tort judgments are dischargeable while all familial support judgments are not dischargeable. What did you base your claim on?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 01:30 PM
1

What type of debt is this and your claim that it isn't dischargeable in bankruptcy is based on what?
/r/MensRights16/06/13 09:00 AM
1

And... going around a car by going into the lane for oncoming traffic is how many bikers get hit.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 07:25 AM
2

The legal system was created as a jobs program for lawyers. That will quickly clear up many of the "wtf moments" when learning about the legal system.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 02:25 AM
1

Well, she was convicted. I hope she was the killer, the creep, and the stalker. Unfortunately "convicted" or "guilty" doesn't mean "actually did it." That being said, I'm pretty sure she actually did it.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:59 PM
2

Note that due to differences in reporting, these numbers may not be comparable across countries
/r/MensRights09/05/13 02:52 PM
5

but sadly many abusers will act like the victim as a form of control. You don't say? Perhaps we should apply this observation (and the doubt it should spread) to everyone.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 03:35 AM
1

Did she have a child support order at the start of the 12 years or did she obtain it afterwards?
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:58 AM
1

Was there an order for him to pay child support? In this situation, there was no order for the mother to pay child support.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 02:36 AM
1

I would guess the welfare had a lot to do with why the state went after the father. I would guess they are going after him for re-imbursement of state payments and I don't think it's actually "back child support." I may be wrong though.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 01:03 AM
0

If you don't mind me asking, where is this? Was there a child support order? Did the mother collect state assistance?
/r/MensRights02/05/13 11:49 PM
-1

Should still be able to do one retroactively. No, I don't think you can. My response is a reply to the statement, "A man not paying child support for that long would be in jail." I don't think a man in this situation would long be in jail. I don't think a parent can get a retroactive child support order.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 09:25 PM
25

Not if the mother had him declared legally dead so she could marry someone else. Remember, child support obligations require child support orders. I doubt this was ever done because the woman up and disappeared completely.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 12:36 PM
7

It's always interesting to watch people attack the messenger and entirely ignore the people actually doing the shitty things the messenger revealed. It's almost comical. You had prominent politicians in at least the U.S.A. and Canada calling for his execution. They didn't bother punishing or even investigating the instances of blatant state corruption, fraud, lying, murdering, etc., they instead focused the full, enormous weight of the international community on the messenger. Because the proble…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 03:23 AM
1

It wasn't meant to be, but it was a poor word choice given your reaction to it. I'll edit my comment to reflect what I meant to communicate.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 01:52 PM
1

I misread your comment and edited my response 4 minutes before you responded. Sorry if you didn't catch it. I apologize for my edit. It's uncited so I cannot verify the claim and the claim conflicts with other things I have read over the years.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:37 AM
1

It's uncited so I cannot verify the claim and the claim conflicts with other things I have read over the years.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 10:25 AM
8

In the vast majority of states, it's irrelevant whether the person knew the girl was underage. What was the lawyer going to do even if he hadn't admitted he had sex with the girl or anything else? Deny that he had sex with the girl or hope the state couldn't prove it? Good luck.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 09:20 AM
0

When you leave, nothing will be lost. All the shit in this comment thread is you and your emotional, irrational friends invading from AMR.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 05:36 AM
-1

Alright Sherlock. In my world we keep it to the actual discussion, and do our best not to make personal comments about the person we disagree with. Oh geez, the irony. your's yours is already possessive you nitwit. Nop, guess it doesn't. You do realize that the above quoted paragraph is in response to your usage of shaming language as a personal attack against me? No, I guess not or the irony of this claim would have stopped you from typing it out. I guess you're just as delusion about "your" wo…
/r/MensRights19/04/13 04:18 AM
0

Brave people helped the injured that day. I guess we're looking at different pictures and videos. Even most of the pictures you posted show mostly men. Seriously? As for why it makes it seem as if the risks women took that day were somehow not equal to the men, that's pretty easy to find: It doesn't make it seem that way. That certainly wasn't expressly claimed. No one even suggested that a woman who helps "isn't equal" to the men who helped, they noted that more men helped. You're being pretty …
/r/MensRights19/04/13 04:11 AM
-2

That's interesting because you had time to respond to three comments I left after this one including an emotional fit about your hurt feelings. Don't be so dishonest. Notice still no response explaining the correct definition of "fact" and how that excludes the specific claims I made.
/r/MensRights19/04/13 04:09 AM
1

Even if that "presumption" were true, why does it make you an object? You can be an agent and act in your own agency and still come here to downvote for yourself or with a downvote brigade. This implication is irrational and I plainly denied I think any such thing anyway. You're right, this thread is full of shit and that shit is you and your fellow brigadiers.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 09:44 AM
1

No you don't think women are objects unless they are doing AMR biding or something. Ugh. I don't think women are objects even if they are doing the bidding of AMR. I'm actually trying to figure out how you actually managed to even imply I thought this.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 08:06 AM
2

Were you participating in downvote brigades before AMR existed too or just now? It's adorable the way you treat women like objects who must be encouraged to do something instead of agents. Why aren't they in X fields? Because they're not encouraged, helped along, etc. Women are not objects.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:24 AM
-2

Silence: exactly what I expected. This user has replied to me at least three times so they saw my previous comment. Run along now, hopefully you can convince yourself you saved face.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:46 AM
-6

Ah yes, women are emotional. Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Somewhere in my comment, I actually made the general claim that women are emotional. Until now, I hadn't even thought about whether or not you were male, female, or something else. But hey look! Now we can talk about another irrational emotional response of yours instead of the substantive topic of the thread! Oh really? You know all that about me? Nope, it's a rather facile, educated guess based on the few comments of yours that I h…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:45 AM
2

Well, since those statements quite clearly do not expressly state, ""therefore, men are better than women," you're working off of implications you read into those statements. It's pretty odd to then say that implications you drew but weren't stated were "claimed." Ignoring the fact that you took those comments without the rather odd substitution in the comments they were replying to, the most you could legitimately draw from those statements is that the men who helped are better "good people" th…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:39 AM
-2

If men running to help at the Boston bombing means men are better people than women I didn't make that claim and neither did anyone else in this thread. You are creating this out of thin air so you can get upset and are emotionally raging at everyone in the thread along with the others in the downvote brigade you are participating in. Honestly, this is probably more telling of you and your thought process. You think that if this is true, it means men are better than women, and that is uncomforta…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:26 AM
-1

The video he posted only showed the site of the first bomb, and if you actually look at pictures and other video from the event, you will see a fair amount of women. Who said there weren't any women? I don't see anyone claiming there were zero women. He explicitly noted they weren't there in equal numbers, not that there weren't any there. Don't be dishonest. So again, how does pointing out that nearly all of the initial helpers were men invalidate the efforts of the women who did help? It makes…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 01:58 AM
2

Downvote brigades.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:32 AM
-1

Why is pointing out that nearly all of the initial helpers are male invalidate the efforts of the women who helped?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:30 AM
2

Are we also gonna touch on the fact that almost all bombers are male? Sure, we can touch on that fact if you like. I'm not afraid of reality. It looks like you are. Welcome to the againstmensrights downvote brigadiers.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:28 AM
2

Hey, look, another againstmensrights downvote brigadier.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:27 AM
2

At least againstmensrights downvote brigades.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:26 AM
3

againstmensrights downvote brigades
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:24 AM
1

Most mass murderers are male. That is a time-tested and objectively provable fact. Ignoring facts because they are uncomfortable is being jezebel. Being a murderer strongly correlates with being male. It looks like this thread is being invaded by AgainstMensRights trolls. You're in good company.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:23 AM
2

You're saying "look at this one very specific instance, this proves that men are better people than women". and this, my friends, is exactly why they are downvoting. They are, apparently, unable to read or comprehend the English language and downvote because they, themselves, are using these provable facts to draw conclusions they find uncomfortable but which were never mentioned nor implied. I didn't see anyone claim, "therefore, men are better than women." I don't think anyone here or who comm…
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:20 AM
-1

What does fact mean? I thought it meant an objective statement which is verifiable. I can objectively show that nearly all the people initially approaching to help in that video are men. I can also objectively show that being a "good person" if you are going to use that as a describer for those who approached to help correlates with being male. What definition of "fact" excludes these two statements: Nearly all the men who initially approached in that video are men. Being a "good person" if you …
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:09 AM
-13

Well, nearly all the "good" people in the pictures and videos are men. In this situations at least, being a "good person" correlates quite strongly with being male. Draw what you will from that fact. edit: I honestly don't understand why people are downvoting this fact. Sometimes facts can be uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean we should run from them. You cannot dispute that fact that nearly all the initial people approaching to help are males, so you downvote. If you downvoted, why?
/r/MensRights17/04/13 02:39 AM
31

I bet the women's resources center chalked this up as "another women beater gets away with beating women."
/r/MensRights13/04/13 10:45 PM
7

My understanding of defamation (and thus slander and libel) is that you cannot defame, slander, or libel with the truth. Falsity (or at least injustice) is required for all. Mileage may vary for others.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 01:59 AM
18

slandered It's not false. You are not slandering anyone when you speak the truth. and a long, bitter court battle in the cards. If she was smart, she would settle or get a defualt judgment and declare bankruptcy. She has no money. I doubt there will be a court battle at all.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 01:18 AM
1

Interesting read. If you have a study which actually accounts for selection bias and causation v. correlation issues, I would love to see it. I have no doubt that alienation and disenfranchisement definitely account for many anti-social behaviors, but the extra jump towards a claim where marriage causes fewer crimes is not convincingly supported.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 02:44 PM
3

What study are you talking about? Please link it. I would like to see a study on this subject that accounts for the causation issue (the second paragraph in my post) or manage to mount the correlation versus causation problem usually plaguing these sorts of discussions. edit: Oh, you mean the thing you originally linked. Did you read it or did you just look at the summary? Using data collected from over 650 male former prisoners returning to three large U.S. cities between 2002 and 2005, we test…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:10 PM
2

I don't understand why this bothers you. Clearly married men are less likely to commit crimes than unmarried men are. That's a rather naked assertion. You don't think you should control for confounding factors like age (older men more likely to be married), socio-economic status (poor men less likely to be married), etc. in order to at least imply, therefore, that marriage is the reason married men commit fewer crimes? If I had to guess, I would guess the reason married men commit fewer "anti-so…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:40 PM
1

If they don't get money from prostitution to support their drug addiction, what are they going to do for money then? It's nice to think that if you stopped prostitution, they would suddenly clean themselves up, but that isn't the norm in these situations. They usually go to even worse and less safe ways to make money.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:03 AM
2

Why not go after the actual sex traffickers for sex trafficking instead of throwing people in jail and shaming them for non-crimes? This seems like a complete misallocation of police resources if what they are targeting is sex-trafficking.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:59 AM
4

Every single story of false rape I have seen which has comments always has a similar comment like this. In fact, I think I remember someone writing a similar comment on the 60 minutes episode. Who cares if this young man had his life ruined and but for the actions of two decent women would probably be looking at a lengthy jail sentence and stigma for the rest of his life for something he didn't do? It is shocking that people so easily dismiss the victimization of an entirely innocent person by t…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 05:47 PM
3

A young woman named Katelyn Webster told investigators that Folino had stalked, choked and raped her, and she showed them neck bruises to prove it. Good God. When his investigator contacted the two girlfriends, DiFenderfer said the women refuted the whole story, saying Webster was in a new relationship and didn’t want her father to know. The women said those choke marks on her neck turned out to be from that other boy. Two decent women probably saved this man's life. Thank God this defense attor…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 05:42 PM
1

I don't have a problem with people being publicly shamed for their comments. The OP apparently does and the user you responded to was pointing out that AVfM does pretty much the same thing.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 01:17 AM
9

She was posted on a public site pointing out her bigotry... which is: Isn't that pretty much what AVfM is doing? The answer is yes, that is pretty much the same thing AVfM is doing. I know that you are aware of this, so I am rather puzzled why you would respond with "outing people who engage in illegal activities?" You know full well that AVfM posts people and their full names on the internet for "bigotry."
/r/MensRights18/03/13 01:03 AM
2

/r/MensRightsMeta
/r/MensRights18/03/13 12:49 AM
2

Yep, it is. Interestingly, it all happened during a period where certain mods were coming under heavy criticism for their actions in the subReddit. They first moved any discussion about the subReddit as a whole (and mod criticisms) to a subReddit the typical user never goes to and then they seized the reddit from original creator and instituted anonymous mod accounts which they all still use. The top mod is ignatiusloyola.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 12:46 AM
9

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Jessica_Valenti_--_Bigot What did she do that was illegal?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 12:37 AM
2

You cannot be a mod; there is a group of friends that are the mods of this subReddit and they mod behind anonymous generic usernames to avoid accountability.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 12:34 AM
5

No it's not. Young males are more likely to cause more damage when they are driving for a number of reasons. It is not unfair to assign costs to the pool which is more risky.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:50 AM
2

Here's the kicker: Stupid people rarely realize they are stupid.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 09:49 AM
3

Nope, those in power are most interested in staying in power, some of them are willing to challenge the status quo but the system is set up so that whoever feeds the lines that the voters want to hear most, will most likely end up in power. Where did I assert anything different? Hate didn't get these feminists from being excluded by the people in power. The reason they weren't excluded is because their hate actually appeals to at least a certain group of people who hold powers over others. Pleas…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 12:14 AM
3

The existence of patriarchy != patriarchy theory. You need an extra beyond a patriarchy in order for patriarchy theory to be true: a patriarchal system designed for the express benefit of men. Patriarchies have and do exist (at least to some degree on a spectrum), but the extra implication is unsupported.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 12:03 AM
2

It does, but your aversion to the concept doesn't mean it isn't true. This is actually a fallacious appeal to consequences. Don't get me wrong, patriarchy theory is bunk, but it's not bunk because I think it turns women into helpless objects. It's bunk because it isn't supportable when you look at historical and contemporary social relationships.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 12:01 AM
3

So not many people apparently... most importantly the charlatans in power in the state. Unfortunately, those many people are pretty important if you are trying to discuss change or popular perceptions. Hate is actually a pretty effective means to communicate for some purposes; it's especially effective in ostracizing unpopular viewpoints. In this example, BallsackTBaghard is directing "hate" (with the word scum) at Sarkeesian and arguably her supporters. This is absolutely not "hate' generally a…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 11:44 PM
6

Spreading hate is the easiest way to get dismissed Dismissed by whom? There is a healthy amount of feminists who spread hate and they don't get dismissed; they get put on government boards to craft things like VAWA. Who were they dismissed by?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 11:37 PM
3

Sometimes serious issues are best handled with humor... especially in the context of an otherwise hostile audience (i.e. employment law class). I would simply talk to him about it.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 09:10 AM
0

No RedactedDude, there is actually a huge conspiracy among gaming developers to make less money (vastly less money if the hilariously broad peddled statistic is true) just to keep women out of gaming and piss off feminists. Because, obviously, gaming developers hate women and feminists more than they like money.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:35 AM
1

If you are so lazy you cannot bother to put forth the effort to type a few words in google, I'm not going to humor you. If you give a shit, you can do the legwork. If not, I'm not going to humor you anyway. Cheers!
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:31 AM
1

Do a google search. If you gave a shit about the truth, you would have already done so. Good luck (it's not hard).
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:29 AM
0

The analogy is is bad because the vast majority of gaming is multiplayer video games. The vast majority of books are and other forms of media are not multi-player inherently. The vast majority of video games are fundamentally intertwined as a social interaction. That being said I still don't understand what you are arguing? Your analogy is bad. Girls can't interact with boys? No. Shouldn't want to through games? No. Cheers.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 01:27 AM
1

And no, you don't. I know. ou clearly disagree, but have not provided me any sort of survey that gives any other statistic Even though you were engaging in a cheap rhetorical tactic, I humored you anyway. I did provide a survey for a specific game (the largest game at the moment). And even defined terms with described methodology! To claim, "but have not provided me any sort of survey that gives any other statistic" is outright dishonest and disingenuous. There are more surveys with similar resu…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:33 AM
1

My claim is that your claim is unsupported. A reason for me to doubt your position and the undefined, undescribed survey is other surveys I have seen for specific games. I didn't claim, therefore, that 90% of all gamers are male. If you cannot read or understand my comments, I'm not going to type them out. I will, however, point out your nonsense to others and poke fun at you because of it. I actually don't have to prove your claim of 40/60 is inaccurate for it to be discarded as unsupported. Go…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:22 AM
1

It's not merely not a "completely foolproof survey," it's a survey with undefined terms and undescribed methodology making it almost entirely irrelevant in this discussion. Don't be so dishonest. But when you can't provide any sources, not even a shitty one, to back up your claim, then you don't get to talk shit about the source I provided. Are you retarded? My claim is that your claim is unsupported. A reason for me to doubt your position and the undefined, undescribed survey is other surveys I…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:10 AM
2

No, you said "large franchise games." Hence: Well link me to the survey with its methodology that says women don't play the large franchise games Don't be so dishonest. It's pretty obvious you have no desire for the actual stats, the truth, and are using this as a petty game to try and save face. If you can't provide that, then I have the most credible statistic in this discussion. The one which doesn't have methodology described, doesn't define used terms, and doesn't even describe what "repres…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 06:05 AM
2

This is known as burden shifting and it's a cheap rhetorical tactic or otherwise fallacious. You didn't link it because you don't have it and cannot support your claim. I understand you are only doing this to be dishonest and disingenuous, but since I am overly-kind, I'll humor you anyway. Here you go in picture format for your consumption! You have demonstrated this is the level of statistical analysis you will accept, so you're welcome. I'll add some details: It was based on an official survey…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:44 AM
1

I'm not commenting because I think I will change your mind, I'm commenting to point out some of your silly nonsense to others. If there wasn't an audience, I wouldn't respond at all. I would just laugh at you. I'm not saying it's valid. "I'm just using it to support a repeated claim which underpins every single comment I have related to women and gaming." Okay. You're sexist, plain and simple, and you'll stay that way Lol, okay. "Shit! I don't have a response, I'll go with standard option B, cal…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:31 AM
1

Yeah, I bet. and neither one of us is going to budge, so what's the point? I mostly respond to point out your silly nonsense to others. I really have no misconception that you will renege on a position you are clearly so invested in, especially one built completely on ignorance.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:20 AM
0

Playing multi-player games is a social activity. Reading a book is not a social activity. The interaction isn't based on the solo enjoyment of the video game, it is fundamentally intertwined with playing the video game. Overwhelmingly, the most successful games are multi-player games. That's the important distinction between playing video games with your friends and reading a book alone and talking about it later. If the main way that people consumed books was by team reading individual chapters…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:58 AM
3

I did, it wasn't there. If it's so easy and you already found it, go ahead and cite it. It only listed 2,000 surveys and an assertion about "representative households." It didn't describe the further details you added. Unfortunately, those terms (ex. "representative households" and "gamer") need definitions or they're meaningless. It didn't explain most of the important questions I have about it. You don't have any of that, but it supports your viewpoint... therefore it's valid. If you read or u…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:52 AM
1

She is ignorant. That is why she picked Lara Croft. The vast majority of protagonists, male or female, are sexualized. Lara Croft is no more sexualized than Kratos from God of War or a myriad of other male protagonists.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:47 AM
1

Run along. You were preaching nonsense, I called you on it, you tried to squirm away, and I linked it to you. I wouldn't want to respond to that comment if I were you either. Your biggest complaint about male and female roles in video games is that it represents reality. Males are heroes. Males are rescuers. People want to see sexualized and objectified characters, both male and female, in their media. Bitch and moan until your heart's content. The world shouldn't change because you have body im…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:23 AM
1

Link to the methodology of the survey. The most important parts would be how it was conducted, the questions asked, and how people were assigned into the "gamer" category based on their answers. Until then, a survey conducted by a group who is interested in making gaming appear to be as representative of the population as a whole (ESRB) is not going to convince anyone. The issue, of course, is that the results of that survey are so wildly different than people who actually play video games' expe…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:13 AM
0

Reading books isn't a social activity. Video games are not merely medium, they're a social interaction. Up to this point, that interaction has been mostly males. For the foreseeable future, that interaction will overwhelmingly be males.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:09 AM
-1

A lot of women I've spoken to are incredibly turned off to video games because of the community surrounding it Yeah, the male community. We know, you want to change that and think something is wrong with it. Anything males like and you don't like is "incredibly sexist" to you and you are willing to use or ignore any evidence to keep towing that demonstrably false nonsense.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:08 AM
1

Starcraft, Starcraft 2, Warfract series, Diablo, Zelda, Dead or Alive, Final Fantasy series... She has no idea what she's talking about. So pretty much your average critic towing this demonstrably false mantra.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 04:05 AM
2

I didn't say the female characters had no redeeming qualities ... Not only are women completely over-sexualized in games (people keep using Lara Croft as a defense, but have you seen what she wears?), but that's often their only redeeming quality. Seriously? You are moving the goalpost as you are being called on your verifiably false nonsense. You are ignorant of gaming, you are not a gamer, and you have no idea what you are talking about. There are very rarely male characters who are "overly-se…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:53 AM
1

Pretty much any multicharacter game has very strong protagonists that are female.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:49 AM
2

You keep linking to the exact same thing and it doesn't explain any of the methodology. I don't even see the limited description you typed out. If you play angry-birds on a computer, you have a computer used for gaming purposes. That does not make you a "gamer." Absent more information about the survey, your repeating its statistics doesn't make it any more convincing. ESRB is very interested and making "gamers" as representative of the larger population as possible so I'm going to question meth…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:44 AM
1

So nothing but personal anecdote. I've seen quite a few feminists disparage and condemn prostitution, strippers, and topless dancers.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 03:39 AM
3

That's why most feminists completely support strippers, prostitutes, or topless dancers. What do you base this on?
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:50 PM
7

Bingo.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:34 PM
3

but have you seen what she wears? Re: Laura Croft This is the crazily hyper-sexualized Lara Croft for everyone else by the way.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:32 PM
6

You attempted to make a distinction between the sexualized males (big, strong, muscular, and powerful) and sexualized females by claiming that female characters don't have redeeming qualities (and the males do). Lara Croft is a perfect example that counters that attempted distinction. It's completely nonsense, the distinction is bunk and counter to actual video gaming and video game history. Very, very rarely is there a strong female protagonist who isn't scantily-clad Very, very rarely is there…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:22 PM
2

I appreciate the link, but it doesn't actually cite the survey this claim is based off of. The methodology of the survey is what I really care about (i.e., what is a "gamer," who they asked, etc.). The problem I have with this statistic is it probably counts a hilariously broad number of people as "gamers." I don't consider someone who plays Angry Birds at work a "gamer." People who play the games which are typically used as examples of things women don't like should be used as the representativ…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 10:02 PM
9

they still have redeeming qualities outside of their physicality. It's interesting you mentioned Lara Croft. Lara Croft is a hero, by the way. She is the protagonist who is portrayed as a respected, highly intelligent, archaeologist who is very well-spoken, fluent in multiple languages, and goes about killing mostly men in order to save the day. She has quite a few redeeming qualities other than scantily clad clothing (which has gotten worse - or better) over the years. She's pretty much a femal…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:55 PM
2

Women gamers is a relatively recent phenomenon and it's asinine that women invaded a previously male space and demand that it be catered to them is the same thing as: God forbid women dare to enjoy video games. Sadly, you actually think that. You're emotional, irrational, and suffer from a severe lack in the ability to read and understand English. You should calm down. edit: Here is another explanation. You're reading something which isn't there because you're upset and want to be offended.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 09:20 PM
5

Yeah, that is exactly what I said. I can see reading and thinking rationally is a problem for you. I can tell those emotions are getting in the way. When you can act like an adult and manage to read or understand my comments, you come back. Until then, cheers.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:56 PM
2

He never said, "women don't deserve to complain about video games because the other industries are female dominated." Nor did he say the other thing you ascribed to him and I quoted. You added that.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:41 PM
13

he only issue I care about is when women are only put in skimpy, sexy clothes, but whatever. I guess the macho, muscled, attractive males and the giant piles of dead men strewn throughout videogame gameplay didn't bother you too much. It was the scantily clad computer generated women in sexy clothing.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:36 PM
3

I heard naked repetition actually makes the statement true. You were offended for whatever reason and decided to rage by reading things which weren't written or implied. It's clear you are uninterested in a productive or genuine dialogue. If you find the link, I would be glad to look at it. My guess is it's pretty suspect, but it doesn't really matter. Women gamers is a relatively recent phenomenon and it's asinine that women invaded a previously male space and demand that it be catered to them;…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:32 PM
2

women don't deserve to complain about video games because the other industries are female dominated. Well, that wasn't said. You are reading quite a bit in between the lines. I think you started reading, got upset because you like video games, and proceeded to read in things to be offended. You're raging at a strawman. There is no reason for video games to be a "man" thing. There are plenty of reasons. You may not find them convincing, but that doesn't mean "there is no reason." Saying such a si…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:26 PM
1

I'm not an attorney. So what do you base these opinions on? I understand you would prefer to simply insult, belittle, and shame instead of simply answering legitimate questions or criticisms, but you are just harming yourself.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:20 PM
1

Because if you ever disagree with a court precedent or statute, you're wrong. I hope it took you a moment to push that one out, but I doubt it. You apparently haven't managed to conquer the "is/ought" distinction.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:14 PM
1

lol.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:12 PM
1

No, actually it's not. You basically just repeated the state of the law instead of providing any explanation about it whatsoever. That isn't "simple logic" although "simple logic and reasoning" does support the reason why those two assertions are true. The user asked "why" when they said "how is a waiver of child support unconscionable clausse?", I seriously doubt they were looking for "because it is."
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:08 PM
3

But to sit here and say that women don't deserve to have a voice in the video game industry is just fucked up. Did you actually read the above user's comment or did you get upset and read whatever you needed to read to be offended? I will agree that a lot of other industries have focused more on women, but you can't really pin the blame there on the women. That's the fault of the production company/writers/etc. And this applies to video games... It's just shitty to say that women should be allow…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 07:50 PM
1

No, I didn't say that. I said it's a risk, I didn't say it would necessarily happen. I did "seriously doubt" that it's not a risk for your local pd. As I said, that is exactly what others thought to and now they are sitting behind bars.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 12:24 AM
0

I actually didn't say or imply that. If you cannot read or understand my comments, I will stop typing them. Cheers!
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:11 AM
0

Some people listen to others and some people have to learn lessons the hard way. It's funny, the people going to prison for making incriminating statements which are used against them probably thought the same thing you did. "My local PD would never do X to me"... until they did. Then again, maybe you are in a LEO family (or a political family). The risks are there even if you think your PD is the exception (I seriously doubt it), but good luck!
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:49 AM
2

I think you just don't know what you are talking about... which is why I said, "I doubt it." Watch the video, it should help you understand how truthful statements can be incriminating. Not that it really matters. Is the OP in your local police force's jurisdiction? Maybe you should be more careful handing out advice on making potentially incriminating statements.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:30 AM
1

I seriously doubt it. Most of the things said in that video are true for any law enforcement. Telling the truth to law enforcement can make you worse off. It's not my life you're risking; knock yourself out. When you make comments like this, however, you are risking the life of the person you are giving advice. Please be more careful.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:24 AM
7

Don't talk to the Police. If you have to talk to the police, please, please go to an attorney first, go over your statement, and make sure they are with you when you go to talk to them. Truthful statements can easily be incriminating when they are butchered and recanted by law enforcement.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:21 AM
1

Go to the police to protect yourself from the police.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:08 AM
10

Yeah, sing like a bird and tell them a bunch of incriminating information to be used against you when they take the girl's side.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:05 AM
8

Poe's Law.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:59 AM
5

She says she's sorry and it won't happen again. They always do. I would make it very clear that if she ever touches you again in anger that you are going to leave her. If she does, leave.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:48 AM
18

They should have known this young woman was going to falsely accuse them of rape; after all, false rape accusers are rarely prosecuted and it's a very convenient way of getting out of having to explain to a boyfriend that you actually wanted to cheat on him with five guys in a bathroom. He should have known! What's that you say? You also want to claim false accusation of rape is very rare? So the young men should have known that a young woman would falsely accuse them of rape even though you als…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:34 AM
100

victim blaming is only wrong when it's against females*
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:31 AM
1

interwebs tough guy
/r/MensRights08/03/13 05:12 PM
1

Women should be treated equally (except if it isn't beneficial to the woman).
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:42 PM
1

If you want to have your kid convinced you molested her, you should try and piss off a CPS bureaucrat.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:41 PM
3

If you keep laughing it off or downplaying what happened to you, how would she know that you are serious and that her comments are harming you? I would confront her about it and forcefully explain to her that you were sexually assaulted and that her making fun of you being sexually assaulted is inexcusable. If she laughs at you or makes fun of you, you should find a better person to be in a relationship with.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 12:49 PM
2

There is a case that deals with this. It's not exactly like Kris' case, but similar. It involves a 34-year-old man from Alabama who passed out at a party. A woman had sex with him while he was unconscious and she got pregnant. The court ordered him to pay child support. I hadn't seen that before. Wow.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:15 PM
1

Sadly, you didn't. You told me to go on a fishing expedition of all the things you have ever written seemingly so you didn't have to actually answer my simple questions and make yourself look foolish or admit something you probably don't want to broadcast. I'm going to stop responding because it pains me to see you make yourself and by proxy cotwa look so bad. You should be ashamed of your behavior in this thread. Cheers.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 09:35 AM
1

Unfortunately your posts and rants in this thread and the OP.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 06:01 AM
1

You conflate my defense of the presumptively innocent with something that simply isn't true. I may have, but since you are unwilling to answer the simple questions I asked I am left having to go with my initial assessment.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:54 AM
2

It's interfering with his right to have an education, don't you think? Title IX says its a right. Don't you think he has such a right, or do only women have such a right? I don't think women or men have a "right" to an education. "Right" implies that they are able to force others to give them an education. Feminist troll. Better use one of your other names from now on, you are toast around here. I'll let others read my comments, go through my user history, and decide for themselves whether I am …
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:48 AM
1

I'm glad you defend the falsely accused. I don't think you hate women or assume women are lying. I think you are pretty fair no matter the genders of the accused or accuser. But in this case, I'm pretty certain you think the woman is lying and the man is innocent.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:44 AM
1

You're right, I do think you think she's lying. No, this does not mean I think you think everyone woman who makes a rape accusation is lying.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:38 AM
1

Sigh. I can type comments out, but I cannot force you to read them or understand them. You think it's proper to go around treating a man who has been cleared of serious charges as a potential rapist for the rest of his life. No, I think it's acceptable for a possible victim of rape to go around telling others that a person who was not found guilty of rape is a rapist. edit: here's a picture of this comment.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:34 AM
0

You have assumed we are Neanderthal men's righters who assume every woman lies about rape. No, I have not assumed that. I think your outrage is only explainable if you think the woman is lying about the rape and the male is innocent. Frankly, in this circumstance, I think the woman is probably lying about this, but I don't know and that is why I don't agree with sanctioning her for telling others someone is a rapist. I don't think you would defend an actual rapist against the publishing of their…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:23 AM
0

I am happy to embarrass myself You've made that perfectly clear. If only you applied your perceptions of my conduct to your own; Using your view, you have at least implied that the accused is innocent and the woman is lying. If the woman was actually raped, would you really be defending the actual rapist against being published to the community? I hope not. You understand that too which is why you avoided answering that exact question I posed elsewhere. The answer, if in the negative, would make…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:17 AM
2

This is my only account, I have been involved in this community off and on for quite some time, and I'm an anti-feminist. This is how Pierce Harlin responds to criticism; he starts raging like an immature child and dismissing anyone criticizing his at least implied flawed claims as a troll. You are no friend of the wrongly accused, or of presumptively innocent men and women we give voice to at COTWA. Luckily, immature, emotionally charged people acting like raging children don't get to decide wh…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:59 AM
0

You're making yourself and by proxy cotwa look terrible by continuing this conduct and your other conduct. It's apparent that instead of correcting misinterpretations or admitting your errors, you will resort to name-calling and subject changing to avoid it. It's sad really.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:51 AM
1

You're just embarrassing yourself acting like such an immature child. At least we can talk about your silly antics instead of your flawed or fallacious arguments and implications. Hopefully you will realize how immature you are acting in response to criticism and will delete these comments too. edit: You already have! Lol. Here is a picture for that one too!
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:50 AM
1

Yeah, I'm going to spend a bunch of time going through lots of material in order to find the answer you could give me by spending a few seconds writing out a small response. I understand this move was pretty silly on your part, but you're making yourself look worse by acting like such a child.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:33 AM
1

Absolutely. Since you have avoided all my questions, I'm going to end this dialogue. I'll let others decide why you did so. I understand your frustration and appreciate a lot of your work, but you're making us all look silly.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:20 AM
1

Do you think rape victims should be allowed to publish to others that their rapist is a rapist? What if some court holds that the rape victim was unable to satisfy a burden of proof? Is it then wrong? PierceHarlan has gone through and deleted his comment in response to me. Here is a picture of the deleted comments. I don't know why you deleted it, but that's a bit dishonest. Why did you delete them? I think you deleted them because it reveals that you actually do assume the guy is innocent and t…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:15 AM
1

Well, it looks like PierceHarlan has gone through and deleted his comment in response to me. Here is a picture of the deleted comments. I don't know why you deleted it, but that's a bit dishonest. I understand your experiences in the past were bad, I know full well that many of these "courts" can accurately be described as "kangaroo courts," but that doesn't justify you overplaying your hand here or trotting out a silly "this is a nation of laws" diatribe. There actually isn't a law which prohib…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:10 AM
1

Not guilty does not mean innocent. I doubt it, but she may have actually been raped. Just because the student-run dispute organization didn't find that she had met the burden of proof to show he raped her and therefore deserved sanction doesn't mean he didn't rape her.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 03:38 AM
11

because patriarchy theory.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 09:21 AM
-4

I laughed at a very inappropriate time during a phone call. It was that and I called you a monster for having a penis for 36 whole years and not immediately apologizing for it.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:57 AM
-1

You... monster.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:47 AM
1

"I'm mad." "About what?" "I didn't get a bonus this year." "Oh, so you are mad because you didn't get a bonus this year?" "Yes." "Is it a fact you didn't get a bonus this year?" "Yes." Derp.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:06 AM
0

You're demonstrably wrong and trying to avoid that issue. "Feelings" are based on facts. Some of those relevant facts include past income; you're wrong.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:35 AM
1

No one was making the statement that such things were irrelevant to the law. When you find the person you are arguing against, you come get me.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:34 AM
-1

Yes, I do. If they weren't, they wouldn't need to account for race in the first place. All of the people accepted to Harvard are well qualified, but that doesn't mean they are equally qualified. If you are only attempting to claim that they all meet some bar, then you should probably say that instead of the demonstrably false "Do you really think that the top black candidates for acceptance are any less qualified than the top white candidates?"
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:51 AM
2

Where did you read that? I went to a T-14 law school and when they say "anonymous," they typically mean that anonymous numbers are assigned and that is the only identifier on the "tests."
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:49 AM
1

It's not anonymous. The spots they were talking about are 12 spots in which they already use an interview process... a process in which they already consider race. The 34 other spots are anonymously chosen based on a test score or a test score and grades. This isn't surprising. My law review chose people based purely on a written test which used anonymous numbers assigned to takers. As a board member, someone proposed to the selection committee that we take gender into account because our board …
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:47 AM
1

I am not the top mod of this subreddit, nor am I a mod at all. People can think of me however they want. Yeah, I don't believe this for a second. Feel free to demonize me for seeing some redeeming value in child support I didn't demonize you for seeing some redeeming value in child support. If you cannot follow these threads, perhaps you should avoid commenting.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:13 AM
1

How ironic.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:11 AM
0

Do you even read the comments you are responding to? Because the person above is talking about money going to the custodial parent instead of being used on kids. It's too bad you no longer continue to advertise that you are the top mod of this subReddit. The community should see what type of person the top mod is, their beliefs, and how they behave.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:39 AM
0

What does being angry at each other have to do with voluntarily contributing more money to support children so they aren't raised in poverty? You commented to the latter half of the comment (which was tangential) and made a comment which was tangentially related to voluntarily supporting your children above the poverty rate. Presumably the "some parents" would include the non-custodial parent.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:36 AM
3

It's interesting because had they stayed married, he could have "supported" them at anything above criminal negligence and neglect. But since his wife divorced him, he is now on the hook for a percentage of his income.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:31 AM
1

The court would then take into account his current income, not his past income. The court will take into account both, actually. If the court feels he could earn more than his current amount, they will increase the amount ordered in line with what they feel he should be earning. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but this fatal error in your reasoning makes me question pretty much anything you have to say on this topic about the law, the courts, or what is or is not "relevant." Running fro…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:27 AM
2

What she said is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? Whether the amount he was paying was absurd or not is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? I think the amount he was ordered to pay is quite important as to whether or not I think his actions, the award, or the debt are reasonable.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:22 AM
5

All of those who are stoic aren't stoic because they cannot be otherwise and I don't think those who are stoic are also less able to recognize manipulative attempts. I largely agree about the characterization of emotions as a BIOS, but not all BIOS are the same. Some BIOS react to a larger variety of inputs by formatting base firmware instead of rewriting a few lines. Similarly, some are driven to action by strong, emotional response more than others and I think those people are easier to manipu…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 06:47 AM
21

Non-emotional people are much harder to manipulate.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 04:25 AM
1

You will notice in those countries which practice genital cutting on girls, social oppression through social norm and religious obligation are anything but unilateral against females.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 04:46 PM
9

I'm going to question the reliability of someone's statements when they suddenly report a rape once they have been otherwise jilted. She may certainly be telling the truth and if that is the case this guy is scum, but absent something other than her post-offense claim I am going to hold judgment.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:51 PM
5

Even if the medical benefits are somewhat true, why does it justify forcibly cutting off parts of a baby's dick? There are quite a number of things which have some benefit in the future, but no one seriously considers these as adequate justifications for involuntary mutilations of babies absent medical necessity. In reality, this is apologetics for people who do it for cultural or religious reasons and it's supremely dishonest. The fact that it was so easily banned when it affects female babies …
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:41 PM
9

Even if male genital cutting reduces the risk of HIV infection, why does this justify strapping a baby to a board and cutting off pieces of his penis? If the studies are so convincing, why not wait until the male can give something like meaningful consent to being permanently altered?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 03:37 PM
3

Pedophilia, murder, rape, terrorism, UNTIL conviction. Sure, why not. Because unnamed people disappearing is actually a legitimate concern in "serious" cases. So is the loss of an open, public trial where witnesses must openly accuse their alleged attackers.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 01:39 AM
3

In many states, child support is a percentage of income. In New York state with a salary of $100,000, his annual obligation would be $1416 a month.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:44 PM
2

You're lucky you weren't ordered to pay her legal fees.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:34 PM
1

Tell her that you will insist on a paternity test... and see a lawyer. You are going to be on the hook for 21 years if the kid is yours and she gets primary custody. My guess is she stops working and lives on child support. If I were you, I would seek shared custody. Maybe you should think about leaving if your skills are portable.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:23 PM
1

I'm not bashing you because you have a different opinion, I'm ridiculing you because you are apparently unable to engage in basic reading comprehension and assert things without support.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:01 PM
0

There's no discussing with you. If you continue to fail at basic reading comprehension, that's definitely true.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:46 PM
7

Link the "women hating" and "gender bashing" please. If it's so pervasive, it won't be too difficult to fill a response with easily accessible links.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:42 PM
0

All those things can be done without a marriage certificate. It's English, you can read it.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:39 PM
1

Nah, I guess I'm not looking for something that isn't there to sate my butthurt feelings as to why I'm being downvoted.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:38 PM
2

"False dichotomy" has a particular meaning. What analogy did he make?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:38 PM
4

Do you have a sample case? You just made a bald assertion in your original comment. Are you going to support it?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:35 PM
3

Where were you statistics to support your original comment?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:34 PM
7

Where, exactly, in this entire thread is there people hating the whole female race or only talking about women being abusers? Just because people downvote you for saying silly things doesn't mean they are bashing women.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:31 PM
0

You don't know much about what, exactly, you can put in how how, exactly, effective prenups actually are, do you?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:30 PM
2

Change has to start somewhere and gender bashing isn't going to help anyone Where is the gender bashing?
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:29 PM
3

All those things can be done without a marriage certificate.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:29 PM
2

I don't think you know what "false dichotomy" means. You either fail or succeed.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:19 PM
6

And yet my point still stands. It doesn't, it just reveals that you are quick to make statements you haven't thought about, didn't actually support, and willing to patronize others to do something for some perceived error which ended up being your error. There are a number of legitimate "points" to saying "I know. When did Iceland go to the moon?" One, it's funny because I deliberately sidestepped the part of the statement which most people here would find objectionable. Two, it fights against t…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:08 PM
1

That is commendable. We agree.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:35 PM
2

Something tells me that the likelihood of his kid's friends trawling through the newspaper posts section and recognizing the face is about slim and none. Also, could you actually answer the question I asked instead of restating your previous post?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:02 PM
1

Okay, so he's an idiot because humiliating (even if unintentionally) his ex-wife is against the "child's best interests"?
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:54 PM
1

Do you think he would have been an idiot if he had made the post without the child support caption? Perhaps as an attempt to find his kids mother because they actually miss her and he thinks she is an important part of their lives.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:46 PM
3

I think you were downvoted for filling your response more with "idiot" than providing a substantive response (or even explanation) for the label. If you had merely tried to argue that child support isn't supportable then I think you would have found some support, i.e., this post. There is a kernel of truth in your post; the problem is it gets hidden in a sea of angsty, ranting insults.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:39 PM
8

Who do you think wrote that statement? Because the statement was actually made by Halla Gunnarsdóttir. That is why there are "quotes" around the statement. She is from Reykjavík in Iceland. Don't trip over yourself backpedaling.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:26 PM
2

Okay. And what do you think that shows? I cannot think of a situation where censorship is cast by advocates in a light which is not "progressive." Are they going to say "this is not progressive and we are attempting to repressively control culture"? Of course not. They're going to say it's to protect the children and couch it in progressive overtures.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 10:17 PM
12

When did Iceland send a man to the moon? Also, good luck keeping people from viewing porn. I predict a hack to your censorship wall will be created before you even announce the program.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:42 PM
22

I know. When did Iceland send a man to the moon?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:41 PM
5

When has censorship not been portrayed as "progressive"?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:40 PM
1

That's interesting; you didn't include those qualifiers. You also didn't include important things like "forced to pay." Presumably you think voluntary charity to help children isn't "not right." Not sure what you think I am trying to do? I certainly pointed out the errors in your actual statement (or maybe an accidental truth). If you pay taxes, you are forced to pay for another person's child. And you're correct, that isn't right. Period.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 04:14 PM
-5

Why is victim blaming necessarily wrong? No one is saying the father is completely to blame, they are not saying he's mostly to blame, they are not even saying he is significantly to blame, they are saying he is partly to blame. What is so wrong about saying that? The undeniable truth of this is that had the man acted more responsibly, he would probably not be in this position. The woman's actions were heinous, treacherous, and disgusting, but that doesn't mean the man did nothing wrong. I don't…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:31 AM
1

Do you pay taxes?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:30 AM
3

They can strike it down if they think it's unfair at the time the separation actually occurs. So: They can agree that the prenup was voluntarily entered into and fair at the time of signing but became unfair over the course of the marriage and is thus unenforceable. Yay!
/r/MensRights07/02/13 06:28 AM
14

Were slave men treated well? You know, I bet slave men were treated worse than slave women.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 09:22 AM
1

"allow"... how asinine.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 07:29 AM
2

And yet certain people in certain subReddits downvote more than others for similar comments; MR shouldn't be one of these places given their own message is against the grain.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:51 PM
2

Given MR is against the grain, one would hope they understand it shouldn't deserve downvotes.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:43 PM
1

Oh, I'm sorry I misread your comment. Now that you point it out, I think you're right twoX is worse. But I still think it's a problem here more than many other subReddits.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:38 PM
1

Another "if you don't like it you can get out" comment? Gee, this is new and original.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:04 PM
2

Bee has technically been charged with possession of "obscenity," which under US law includes "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that - (1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene." I knew I shouldn't have dropped that First Amendment/Obscenity class in law school. Obscene material isn't protect by the First Amendment...
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:25 AM
2

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition? The holding of that case should seemingly protect the possession of this filth. I wonder what I am missing here (probably some key facts of this case).
/r/MensRights30/01/13 03:17 AM
2

I guess you skipped the huge piles of male bodies. Men are objectified in video games far more than women; they are turned into disposable playthings who are trying to work, save, and protect others. They are not people, they are objects to deliver satisfaction to others. That is how men are objectified.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 02:49 AM
0

MR is downvote happy on a wide range of things. It may be the worst of any subReddits I have spent any amount of time in.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:30 PM
3

The willingness to downvote in this subReddit for even articulate, relevant comments is maybe the worst I have seen across any subReddit.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 10:29 PM
1

You didn't read this; the ACLU was not complaining. "ACLU" was merely mentioned. So.... do you have a source for this?
/r/MensRights29/01/13 12:36 PM
1

I doubt that; there is a difference between a Christmas tree only (which I doubt they care about) and a nativity scene or cross. Do you have a source for this? I cannot find one.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:04 PM
1

When I was on the phone with her from jail, I had to calm her down. She caused you to be put in jail for 3 days and it's you that is calming her down? Where is Hillary Clinton to explain to us that the real victim here is the poor wife who had to be alone for 3 days after she put her husband in jail?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:19 PM
1

We can wish and hope and then we can deal with reality. I didn't say anything about sexual orientation, you shoved that in there. I find it odd the way you have determined what is (especially when it's not) and want to dictate how others should deal with it.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:51 AM
1

The distinction is they weren't forced.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:35 PM
0

How do you think it will affect the social atmosphere of combat units? If there is any, do you think the effects will weaken the strength, morale, etc., of the combat unit? I worry it will harm unity, cause strife, encourage conflict, etc. It may be my biology or my social conditioning, but seeing a woman get harmed has an entirely different effect on me than seeing a male get harmed; I worry this is common and it will cause soldiers to take additional risks or otherwise act stupid.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:45 AM
3

Yeah, voluntarily working in a factory is pretty much the same thing as being forced into the military and shipped off to the killing fields. I can imagine the horror those poor women felt having to get up at 5 A.M. out of their warm beds in their homes, eat their breakfast, and go off to work. I understand what you are saying, but let's not get carried away here. Conscription targets men; the victims of war (and especially the draft) are always and forever primarily men.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:38 AM
-1

This thread isn't anti-woman, the content isn't anti-woman, the comments aren't anti-woman, and neither is this subReddit even when low content material like this is posted. The post talks about the double standard applied to sex-discrimination and how it is used to control the discussion.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:20 AM
0

Apparently other people do... that's why they upvote it. If you want to see better content, perhaps you should post some instead of bitching about how you don't like some content? It looks like you never have. Get off your high horse.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 08:23 AM
2

Good luck! I'm sure she will be a much better woman.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 09:08 PM
1

SRS is going to say mean things about anyone they dislike and find reasons and ways to twist statements and assertions to be offended. Shit, they think the mainstream line of MRAs is offensive and outrageous.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 09:07 PM
2

Or no and then not cut my dick off? I like that option.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:47 PM
-2

Humor... where did it go? Not sure why this is getting downvotes...
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:34 PM
6

so... should I be ashamed that the mansplaining actually helped my understanding?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:33 PM
2

Something similar happened to a friend of mine. He would put up with quite a bit of abuse (mostly emotional but sometimes physical) because his mother did the same to him when he was younger and he just thought this is what women were like. Well, he lost his good job and was unemployed for a few months. She dropped him for not "manning up." He then got a great job and she came back. And then his dog died and his girlfriend said something about his dog being bad, about how it was a pain, about ho…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:22 PM
3

I agree and thank you for the link; I think it's unhealthy and dangerous. I have simply seen too many people who accept violence, coercion, and abuse on themselves because they are taught to accept it as children.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:16 PM
15

I think teaching children to accept violence done to them is heinous, very detrimental, and has long lasting effects on their development, self-esteem, and how they view society at large.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 02:48 AM
2

Good parenting! I bet that took quite the effort. Explain to him that he's the problem and that he should run away from his problems.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 02:34 AM
3

The confidence doesn't come from beating people up, it comes from being able to defend yourself and not requiring others to help you. It doesn't need to come from here either, but I bet confidence doesn't come from being ridiculed and picked on and being helpless. So, what are you going to do about it. You coyly answered what you're not going to do. Your son is not you. Encouraging helplessness seems pervasive in society and it's disgusting.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 02:17 AM
1

There's probably some truth to that. I understand you cannot actually respond to our dialogue, but this is simply more of the same from you. Facile, underhanded avoidance and insults.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 02:09 AM
0

I was never bullied, I was the bully. I never offensively used violence, but I wish someone had stood up to me. I think someone standing up for themselves and beating the shit out of me would have made me a better I don't know if fighting back will solve world hunger and cause world peace, but what I do think is that telling your son to continue to be helpless because you have been able to talk yourself out of every situation is not beneficial to his development or self-esteem. My son unfortunat…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:48 AM
1

Right, I wouldn't want to try and explain how "decking her in the face" means something other than "punching someone in the face hard." Run along kiddo, adults are talking.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:42 AM
3

That's fine, I don't really care enough to educate someone I think is doing this disingenuously. You can try your childish provocative shaming language on someone else desperately trying to get them to indulge your silly nonsense. Grow up kiddo, I'm not your mom and I don't have any desire to give you the attention you apparently want. Enjoy all your downvotes. I can tell you're popular around here.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:36 AM
4

"Decking her" is punching. What do you think "decking her in the face means"? Punching hard? You can use the term "decking her" in place of "punching" and I still think it's reasonable. I knew exactly what you wrote and thought you were unfairly embellishing what was actually meant... so I corrected it. This is all too funny given you only just now recognized I changed the wording after a couple comments (two here). If you are going to insult someone, you should probably avoid insulting yourself…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:34 AM
3

If you cared, you could easily find this information. I can see you like to use this as a rhetorical tactic instead of a way to learn. Frankly, I don't care to prove to you otherwise. It's a tiny part of a larger comment which you ignored. Cheers.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:32 AM
5

Yeah, that is exactly what everyone is saying. We're all saying violence is great and is the answer to every question. I understand it's uncomfortable to be criticized, but perhaps you could actually read everyone's responses before strawmanning them.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:29 AM
5

We disagree. Punching someone in the face who is physically battering you by holding your jacket and punching you in the face a few times is reasonable (and lawful I might add). I'm unwilling to tell someone that they should simply accept violence and hope others will come help them later. This sort of professed helplessness is harmful and belittling.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:28 AM
5

Defending yourself is not taking the law into your own hands. You would render everyone helpless to hopefully, maybe, ask the police to come protect your afterwards. Punching someone in the face who is physically attacking you is most certainly reasonable in this situation.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:23 AM
8

I have never once got myself into a situation that I cant talk myself out of. Your son is not you. If you have never been in a situation where you couldn't talk yourself out of it, you have never been bullied and do not understand what your son is experiencing.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:17 AM
28

My father told me the same thing. Having a strict no violence rule doesn't protect anyone. It protects the bullies and stigmatizes boys acting like boys even further in school. Violence is sometimes appropriate and even necessary. It's sad that kids who defend themselves when they are bullied are punished more than those who are doing the bullying. Nothing quite like shitting on someone already poor self-esteem like telling them they aren't worth defending and will be punished if they think (and…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 01:12 AM
2

Him continuously subjecting himself to her bullshit, however, is his fault. He has control over it, he had control over it the entire time, and he can end it. Is this not true? He does deserve some blame for opening himself and subjective himself to abuse. No one is claiming that his is to blame for her bullshit, they are claiming he is to blame for subjecting himself to it. This "victim blaming" tripe is nonsense. I don't know why robbing people of their agency when they are abused or victimize…
/r/MensRights16/01/13 08:48 PM
5

If I had to guess, it took him being put into an already battered state for him to realize this person treated him like garbage. I have no doubt that this was how most issues were handled and it took something like his father dying to realize his partner generally treated him like garbage and seemingly doesn't care about his wants or needs. This woman actually types out a response whose main theme is "woe is me" "what about me" after her fiancé's father died without realizing how selfish, self-c…
/r/MensRights16/01/13 08:43 PM
1

Luckily, the rest of the world isn't run like the military.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 06:06 AM
2

I bet he gets an arrears notice for the time he spent in jail if he wasn't making child support payments. That is unless the mother didn't seek a child support order or doesn't seek state assistance.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:49 AM
1

Where "no one" wants to prosecute rapists and where people blame the victim instead of the rapist? The military is more fucked up than I thought (and I thought the military is pretty fucked up).
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:05 AM
10

No, you cannot be the father. You have the privilege of paying bills though.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 04:19 AM
2

Still unhappy about rape, and the way no one want to prosecute the people who commit, and so many want to blame the victims, male or female. Where are these people? I constantly hear about these people and how they're everywhere, but I don't think I have ever actually met one.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 04:05 AM
1

I don't think this is a mensrights issue, but you may want to actually read about the "serious crime" he was alleged to have committed; I wouldn't take the words of the people trying to ruin his life as facts so easily or their attempts to eschew any guilt on their conscience to someone else.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 04:40 PM
2

He didn't share them; he allegedly downloaded them. He even had access to the material he downloaded; what he did can accurately be described as checking out too many books at the library at one time in violation of a library policy. The law he was being prosecuted was being used so broadly as to make breaching a website's terms of service a felony in some circumstances; two federal circuits rejected this broad reading. The Obama administration refused to appeal it to the SCOTUS (probably out of…
/r/MensRights13/01/13 04:38 PM
2

He seemingly gave you a similarly vague response as: She pulls her "facts" from biased sources that are usually debunked to hell and back again before she has even heard of them. What's the deal with downvoting these people? You didn't make your position clear, you made a bald assertion. Others have written similar comments and are sitting in the negatives. Come on MensReights, we're better than this.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 07:16 PM
0

Great, I don't want to be equal. I would gladly give up my worthless vote to be disqualified from being forced to fight some war I didn't want to fight in.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:32 AM
3

You're applying for federal aid to be able to learn shit, the least you can do is promise to perhaps someday possible be entered into a lottery to maybe fight in a war to protect the very federal government that will help pay for your education. The one I will be paying oppressive taxes to with my job I get from my education (and in many circumstances loans too)? That's funny, I have to do that anyway.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:27 AM
1

They need to account for the discrepancy between rapes and rapists too. Two rapes does not mean two rapists. My guess is at least a few "rapes" from various categories (especially the unreported) are committed by people who are in the charged, convicted, etc.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 02:01 PM
0

Here is an interested thread in r/WTF about this infographic. That's not the worst problem with this infographic. If you drill down into the data you'll see their numbers don't match the sources they quote, and their math is just flatly incorrect[1] . I mean, this doesn't even pass the obvious sniff test. There's a big block of "Reported rape," which wasn't brought to trial -- wasn't prosecuted. DA won't prosecute if there's no evidence. But they don't count any portion of those 70 markers as fa…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:15 AM
3

Check out this other link. Lots of skepticism in this thread (and a lot of good responses). Some of my comments: Isn't it wonderful that the author of this graph is able to do what no rational and honest person is able to do: divine that all of these persons who weren't brought to justice were, in fact, rapists. And ones who are brought to trial and charged... and are not convicted are, of course, actual rapists. All the non-reported cases are actual rapists. And all the reported cases which are…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:37 AM
4

... still implying that all the unreported, reported, trialed, and jailed people are actually rapists. I'm not sure whether divine providence informed you of that fact, but I don't know where you got it. Also "unreported rapes" do not equal "unreported rapists." This graph ignores the possibility (even probability) that some of the "unreported rapes" are perpetrated by the reported rapists, trialed rapists, and jailed rapists. This is true for the other categories as well.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:32 AM
1

Thanks for the info.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:57 AM
1

Two wrongs make a right; I have repeated offered gender neutral language to support allocation of costs to those who actually spend, but apparently anytime you refuse to victimize another population with the force of the state, I am obviously supported the state's victimization of the current group. Women should pay the costs of their healthcare.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:56 AM
1

Not in the above response.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 05:46 PM
2

error...error... does not compute. Using shaming language, belittling people, insulting them, etc., can make sense from the perspective of rhetorical effectiveness, too; rhetorical effectiveness shouldn't be valued over, equal to, or even close to substantive argument. It's a tone argument; I can only have so much respect for a tone argument (ignoring the insults). They should have set their emotions aside, put down the "I'm offended you sexist slut shamer!" comments, and tried to respond ration…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 05:02 PM
1

Which probably explains why it is much more levelheaded. That's fine and this is probably true, but that doesn't remove the fact the first is fallacious nonsense and the second from a different author actually provides a rational criticism of the assertions presented instead of "I'm offended. Women don't like libertarianism because people say they're too emotional" (which is pretty ironic - their criticism actually reinforces the claim).
/r/MensRights07/01/13 04:34 PM
3

The video was sexist as she is quite obviously making a generalization based on a difference in sex... to a question about why more libertarians are not women. A response "that's sexist" or "that's offensive" is just a fallacious tone argument. I don't care if you're offended; whether or not you are offended is unhelpful to whether or not the offensive assertion is true. (even Skwire agrees). Thus making himself a sexist... after all, he is accepting a rationale which requires an acknowledgment …
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:45 PM
3

As a libertarian, I am inclined to agree with Steve Horwitz and Sarah Skwire (both of whom are libertarians themselves). The "I'm offended" response? Both arguments were bad, but thinking "I'm offended" is a legitimate response to pretty much anything anyone says is silly (and fallacious). Trust me, it won't. I hope you're right. Although it's cliche, I think the main problem libertarianism has with women is marketing and branding. It's mostly filled with men who quite clearly are not so good at…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:34 PM
2

I'm assuming this is not in the United States because: Lawyer reads out op’s police statement, and has his witness tell the tale, mentions bishes history of violence on bouncers and previous convictions for bishery This would rarely get in front of a jury... even if she testified.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 01:25 PM
1

This happens constantly; women do it, men do it, they all do it to avoid lengthy prison terms. It's easy to pass judgment on those in positions you are never in. People confess to crimes they didn't commit with shocking frequency under prolonged police interrogation; the main difference here is that they threw a few other people under the bus. When you are subject to the coercion, lies, intimidation, and threats of the giant machines of the state (and all their agents), I hope you will stick to …
/r/MensRights06/01/13 10:04 AM
14

No, I doubt it. It's probably more to do with our fragile corporeal existence.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 03:26 AM
1

I still think a male-flavored feminist movement for males is not the answer; people don't care about males. Republicans are traditionalists who will think you're a pussy and Democrats are feminists who think rights are a zero-sum game.
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:16 AM
1

I think it worked pretty well; I think it introduced quite a few more people to the "freedom" platform and put in the ground (the grass-roots organization) work for an even more effective political attempt in the future. But perhaps that is simply hopeful thinking...
/r/MensRights06/01/13 12:10 AM
1

Good luck getting elected bitching about discrimination against males. If history hasn't informed you enough, society at large couldn't really give a shit about males; males are the disposable playthings of the state. You're not meeting them halfway, you are negotiating on their terms where they get to decide what is good and you get to beg for them to care about you too. It's like someone telling you that you cannot do X because they say so, but you meet them halfway where they let you do X, bu…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:54 PM
1

I disagree. I find no obligation to enforce unjust laws just because they are laws. I'm sure you would probably agree on many other unjust laws on the books, what makes this different? We are simply turning into a male flavored version of feminism; where we look to government power to correct problems that government created. I don't think this is the right answer; we should peel back the laws which create these inequities, not pile them on and force more people to suffer under them.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:46 PM
1

If statistics show that a particular race is more risky, then it is ok to charge them more? Yes. If race is the most efficient way to allocate risk, insurance companies should be "allowed" to do it. If you don't like it, go to another insurance company. Should the women of Canada pay higher taxes because they use the socialized healthcare system more? Socialized healthcare shouldn't exist, but yes. We already use, as you say, "force and guns" to make discrimination based on sex illegal. Right, "…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:38 PM
1

They put their boots on and enforce their mandates in either case. I guess I couldn't care very much if cops lamentingly throws children in cages for possession of a plant or enthusiastically does it; they still do it (and for a mediocre paycheck).
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:35 AM
1

I just think it's ridiculous that we agree on the use of the word discrimination but you keep repeating my own position to me as if it's different from yours For someone criticizing another for wanting to argue, you certainly seem to think everyone is arguing with you at all points. a wholly new debate on something that I really don't care about. Right; we wouldn't want to confront the inherent violence "mandates" actually require. That makes it easy to advocate for them.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 10:10 AM
1

Huh? Where do guns come into this? I'm really confused now. What do you think mandates are? They are laws requiring people to do something they would otherwise not do. How are these things enforced? By men with guns. I don't know enough about the way insurance works (and, unless you're an insurance agent, I highly doubt that you do either) I have a masters in economics and I briefly worked at an insurance company trying to estimate risk factors in certain regions the summer before I entered my g…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 09:50 AM
0

You're right, I misunderstood your comment. I took, "I don't disagree - the rates should be equal" as advocating enforced equal rates between males and females. If sex best allocates risk, it should be used to discriminate. I think that it would be nice if insurers had a mandated, maximum allowable initial insurance rate based on the accident rate of the area in which the applicant lives and the car that they plan on driving No, using guns against insurance companies in order to get them to do w…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 09:20 AM
2

Using guns to stop people from voluntarily trading seems reasonable. State force is armed men knocking at your door and throwing you in a cage. Don't kid yourselves.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 08:49 AM
1

It's not consistent. Apparently large groups of MRAs want to use government force to prevent private discrimination against men... that's all that matters. So what if we bitch and moan when men are harmed because the exact same logic is used to socialize costs away from certain groups.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 08:43 AM
2

I certainly don't. There is nothing moral or righteous about using force and guns to make insurance companies ignore relevant statistics when trying to assign risk to pools (and thus costs).
/r/MensRights05/01/13 08:41 AM
-1

I don't disagree - the rates should be equal. I'm not arguing that. Why? Why should women be forced to pay for risk better allocated to males? Trends, generalizations, etc., are how pooled risk works. People discriminate all the time for numerous factors; there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself. Where women spend more money (on healthcare for example), they should pay for the risk best associated to females. Forcing equality (based on special, politically chosen factors) on …
/r/MensRights05/01/13 08:34 AM
2

The Feds do not win 98% of the time at trial. There is a 97% conviction rate, but these include pleadings. The number of people convicted at trial is far less, but is around 85-90% I think. The reason they get so many pleadings is with coercion, intimidation, pretrial detainment, and relatively sweet deals. "You're facing 100,000 years in prison if convicted on the huge unethical list of crimes I dreamed up thumbing through law books, but if you sign this paper you will be seeing a recommended 1…
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:40 AM
20

Eurosoc is a troll. He popped on over here because his trolling has diminishing returns on libertarian or AnCap boards. No. That is not the "libertarian view" on rape.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:16 AM
3

New York is currently a disaster for divorce; young professionals with expensive degrees are turned into indentured servants to support a lavish lifestyle for their relatively uneducated former spouses. Do not get divorced in New York if you have money or obtained a professional degree during a marriage. I have a friend whose marriages ended shortly after his wife learned his law degree he obtained during the marriage was worth so much.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 08:08 AM
7

Traditionalists/white knights in the Republican party and feminists in the Democrat party get together to figure out new ways to fuck over males.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 02:16 AM
12

If so, what do you think the real reasons are? I don't know, but that doesn't mean the author correctly guessed the reason the Republicans are against it. Although many of them are complete morons, I highly doubt a Republican would say something like this: the bill is too supportive of immigrants, the LGBT community, and Native Americans which makes me think they said other things and the author, admittedly progressive and Democrat, characterized what they said. Although I wouldn't put it passed…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:28 AM
8

but that wouldn't make it legitimate to argue with a black person from the US that I know exactly what he feels like. That "exactly" is doing a whole lot of work in this sentence. Who says they know "exactly" what it feels like to be or do X for another person? I don't know anyone who makes such a claim. You are arguing against something no one actually said; a male can have an important perspective on being a female and can have some insight about some of the things they experience. I have yet …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:26 PM
1

I did both actually, internet tough guy. It's easy to tell others to sacrifice themselves over the internet. You do it because you suffer no repercussions, he pays the cost, and you think you may get some benefit if he actually listens to you. Emotion and personal attacks end debates. Coming from someone whose first comment in this thread is a veiled insult against those (the person in this thread) who do not "stand up for what is right" (defined by you, of course), this means little. When you s…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 05:28 AM
1

So in other words you admit it benefits you and that you are trying to encourage this kid to sacrifice himself because you think it will bring the benefits to you. Did you need me to walk you through anything else, internet tough guy?
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:23 AM
1

In other people sacrificing themselves which you think will cause the system to be reformed... thus doing something you want... thus benefiting you. When you sacrifice yourself, you come get me. Until then, I'm going to chalk you up as your typical interwebs tough guy.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 03:03 AM
1

When you sacrifice yourself, you come get me. Until then, you are just some kid on the internet telling others to sacrifice themselves so that you can reap the benefits. When you stop paying taxes to protest this nonsense, you come get me.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:31 AM
2

It's so easy to tell other people to sacrifice themselves over the internet, isn't it? because government and society can not function without the money men make and the labor men do. When you stop paying all taxes, you come and get me.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 01:20 AM
1

I'll start caring about the religious being forced to pay for birth control when people start caring that I am being forced to pay armed thugs to kill brown people around the world. I find it odd that the religious are so indignant that they be forced to contribute money to things they find immoral and seemingly leave out the issue that most people in the country are being forced to pay for things they find immoral. In fact, the "religious" seemingly support me being forced to fund these thugs f…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 07:56 PM
0

It's my moral belief that gays should be taken out into the street and shot. What makes your moral beliefs more important than mine? This is silly nonsense. Churches are non-profits and thus not taxed. I don't see a reason why some non-profits should be taxed to sate your angst against religion. I've been an atheist my entire life and I constantly tire of this silly nonsense in. every. fucking. thread. on. reddit. which mentions anything to do with religion. Congrats, you're an atheist. Pat your…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 07:52 PM
0

You are already forced to pay for birth control in the United States. If you pay taxes, you are forced to pay for birth control. That's the nature of the state. Poor people can already get birth control. Furthermore, let's not pretend like in the absence of subsidies to big pharma (government funding for pharmaceutical birth control) people would be unable to prevent birth. Obamacare will simply transfer the costs of birth control from the users (young women who can afford it) to men and others.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 07:45 PM
1

But there's a difference between regulated state bodies having access to firearms and anyone with a few dollars to rub together having them. There is which I already noted. The regulated bodies you speak of are more likely to commit violent crime (even with laws which make special exception for them) than your average citizen able to put a few dollars together. Those "regulated" bodies are more responsible for death and suffering throughout human history than "anyone" able to get the money to ha…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:26 PM
1

Ah yes, question my subject matter knowledge when I question yours when you reveal your ignorance. Well "argued." At least you don't have to acknowledge your ignorance.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:23 PM
2

I think teachers who are comfortable carrying on campus (with their CCW) should be allowed to do so.
/r/MensRights29/12/12 01:21 PM
4

The "resource officer" stationed at my school spent most of his time bullying children and making criminal threats to get minors to confess to petty indiscretions of school rules. Cops only know violence; putting cops around children is not a good idea. We end up getting stories of cops putting seven year olds in hand-cuffs and chasing twelve year olds down and tasering them.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:30 PM
2

At least you don't have to discuss how painfully ignorant you are of the event or topic. Now we can talk about your dismissal instead of your ignorance.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:29 PM
3

It is consistency, but you recognize it as craziness too. Why does disarming everyone except a small group of armed thugs more responsible for death and suffering in the history of human civilization sound like a good idea? After all, there will still be bad guys. Soldiers and cops are more likely to commit violent crimes in almost every category as your average citizens, but they should have guns because "the bad guys." Non-LEO citizens should not because there is an almost insignificant chance…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:16 PM
1

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You want to push an agenda and you are going to do that come hell or high water. Statistics, contrary evidence, and argument be damned. Enjoy your rant.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 04:12 PM
1

Let's ban guns from the government and its agents. Let's at least be consistent here. There is no need for them to have guns; after all, they have banned guns.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 04:10 PM
6

You have a problem with a massive administration to put armed government people in every school in the country?
/r/MensRights28/12/12 04:08 PM
1

Considering men are more likely to suffer from mental health disorders What?
/r/MensRights28/12/12 03:30 PM
2

Leave the country or move to another state with much better alimony laws. He will have to be there for a couple years though. I doubt he's getting out of alimony in this circumstance in FL; he will probably be paying permanent alimony for the rest of his or her life.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 10:46 AM
2

We're not talking about the morality of marijuana, we are talking about the morality of throwing people in cages for decades because they possessed a plant. I give legality precedence. As a practical matter I can understand why you would give threats of violence precedence over theory spinning. Is this what you meant by this statement?
/r/MensRights25/12/12 12:18 PM
1

Your wife cheated on you and your lawyer told you to file a no-fault divorce? In NY, this has quite a bit of sway. No-fault divorce is something very recent in NY. You filed for a no-fault divorce, but you then presented evidence of adultery is quite a bit different than filing for a fault divorce on the basis of adultery.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 01:16 PM
9

God forbid a single circumcision thread gets posted without some guy assuring everyone that he was cut, doesn't care about it, and explaining he's glad about... thus implying that others shouldn't care anyway because he doesn't care about it. If you weren't okay with it, you would have to deal with the implications and I doubt that you want to do that. I know you're okay with your circumcision.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 03:57 AM
3

Why didn't you file for fault divorce? This makes me question this story.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 03:25 AM
1

Lawyers are not there to help you and do not give a shit about your situation ಠ_ಠ
/r/MensRights23/12/12 02:36 AM
5

You worried she will stop taking birth control or not worry about taking the next birth control pill on time because she thinks you have had a vasectomy?
/r/MensRights19/12/12 05:23 AM
1

Leftist movements are not the same as leftist anarchists or libertarians.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:22 AM
2

Word do change with time, but leftists still use the term libertarian (or it's translation in their language) to describe themselves. "Right-wing" libertarianism is a minority on the world stage. as most "left-wing anarchists" identify with anarcho-syndicalism or anarcho-communism (blah blah) as their ideology anyways. No they don't. Most right wing anarchists ID themselves as anarcho-capitalists, but that doesn't mean they aren't libertarians. Libertarianism is anarchism and has been for centur…
/r/MensRights18/12/12 05:00 AM
2

Libertarianism is a mostly right-wing ideology but left-libertarianism exists though it is really liberalism. Don't tell libertarians worldwide who are primarily left-wing anarchists. Or the creators and users of the word since its conception up through this day in any area outside the U.S.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:52 AM
2

I write more for others than for him. I hold little hope anything I say will actually get through to him, I only hope others reading it will take something meaningful from my responses.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 12:17 AM
4

You let your emotional attachment to all things state and state actors to perceive "facts" in a manner which is contrary to others... often starting from an assumption that the state did nothing wrong and were honest angels and the victim of state action has done nothing right and nothing they say has any truth to it; you work your way back to "the facts" from there. I know you would like to think you are just thinking of the cold, hard facts and not using emotion, but that's complete nonsense. …
/r/MensRights16/12/12 10:41 PM
7

I think this is a bit premature; there are counselors out there who will not do this. Perhaps the man should pick a counselor next time and he should look online for counselors known for not being man-blaming. I'm not saying you are not probably right, only that it's not a certainty.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 09:18 PM
0

You must be new to reality. There have been mass child murderer apologists since the beginning of time. Christian God? Child murderer.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 09:14 PM
0

You probably should. You'll notice the utter lack of "indescrimantely" expressly or impliedly. There is a difference between "labeling all males as militants" and indiscriminately targeting all males. I can type comments out, but I cannot force you to read or understand them.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 09:08 PM
0

Well, since you haven't minding bounding from one assumption to another as you work your way through labels you think are insults (feminist, leftist, U.S. hater, or whatever else), I doubt anything I really say will stop you from continuing. I do think that "targetting" should exist as long as it is done against a combatant currently aggressing against you. I do not think it is justified to throw a grenade at someone who is pointing a gun at you in a crowded theater. The deaths of the innocents …
/r/MensRights16/12/12 09:00 PM
1

I called cops costumed thugs, actually. I am anti-"war" at least as far as you think of it. Defensive force is justified, but typically "war" can never be classified as such. I am not a "U.S. hater" from Canada. I'm an American who is very critical of the U.S. government. "U.S." is not the same as "U.S. government." Of course, no foreign policy will ever be acceptable by you if it is wielded by America or any government that uses power. I think you are confused and sort of stumbling around tryin…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 08:10 PM
4

Pointing out America's failings is nothing special. But our operations/intel over the past 10 years has become extremely advanced. First, it's the American government and the American military. It's not "America." It's not hard when they're so plentiful. Don't use the royal "we" or "our," it's not you that is getting intel. It's the U.S. government. It's not you firing the ordinance. Conflation of self with the state is disgusting. Nationalism is an infectious disease. I have little doubt the in…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 06:29 AM
-1

A more accurate claim is they make some of them and many other ones are independently verified. And I am guessing by this statement you think we should assume the are lying and what they claim didn't happen. If we apply the same standard to people involved in the conflict, why in the world would I take the word of anyone in the U.S. military? They're proven liars.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:57 AM
7

The Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia wants to have a word with you about the accuracy of U.S. intel. taliban/insurgent/al-queda dominated have a VERY high probability that military aged males are combatants. So people are being killed because the U.S. government thinks they are in an area with a high probability of having military aged males? Well, I don't see why anyone wouldn't think this is justified. Mistakes are just unfortunate casualties.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:56 AM
0

The Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia wants to have a word with you.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 05:53 AM
5

This is an odd reading of that decision. They held that it violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the student, but they upheld official immunity for the principal because of the monstrosity that official immunity jurisprudence has become over the years. In the future, this may not be the case (given the precedent). So they weren't "acquitted," they were shielded from civil liability under qualified immunity as the principal didn't have adequate notice the conduct was a violation of the Fourth A…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 10:00 PM
6

Because she wears the right costume and society apparently accepts child abuse for the right reasons (more so if the victim is a male). Children are treated like subhumans and people get away with it as long as they have the right label (ex. Parent/teacher/principal). If you remember, there was a male principal who did something similar to a 13 year-old female student and was not fired a few years ago. The problem is the acceptance of this kind of treatment for children.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 09:53 PM
0

Yeah, those uncomfortable facts might conflict with your worldview, so obviously, without looking or any amount of research, they are wrong and should be ignored. The only people who could enlist after January 1943 were people not eligible for the draft. Perhaps you should go beyond wikipedia pages you agree with in your "education" about American military history. I would do the effort to link to you a relevant website or book to prove this is the case, but you won't read it or you will dismiss…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:26 PM
0

Wait a second. You understand that in January 1943, as part of a compromise between the FDR administration and the military, no male of drafting age could "enlist" or "volunteer" in the military anymore? The only people who could actually enlist were 17 year-olds who were ineligible for military service after 1942. You don't really know much about military history, do you? You sort of leave out important nuances and details which conflict with your world view.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:08 PM
1

The U.S. population was 132 million people in 1940 and 203 million in 1970. There were 2.8 million Vietnam veterans and 16 million WW2 veterans. Note that 80% of 2.8 million is 2.24 million and 66% of 16 million is 10.56 million. There were nearly 5x more volunteers in WW2 as in Vietnam. As a proportion of the population, ~9% of the American public volunteered for active military service during WW2. In Vietnam, only ~1.1% of the American public volunteered for active military service. The point …
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:45 PM
1

Okay. How about the absolute number of soldiers? There seems to be a set portion of people who are willing to volunteer for military service in any population. I would guess the number of soldiers who volunteered for WW2 dwarfed the number who volunteered for Vietnam in both absolute and proportional terms. And the population differences between 1940s and the 1960s and early 70s are quite stark as there was a population boom and particularly a boom in young men during the 60s and early 70s. You …
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:27 PM
1

Clerks of court can be your best friends. I agree that an MRA site to help indigent men with legal docs would be great and may expose the MRM to more people; I'm a lawyer, but I do not do any work in family law. I didn't even study family law in law school. The problem with these types of things is that each state has different family laws and each court has specific filing rules and formats. Mistakes can be very costly.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:53 AM
2

No amount of "it's tough but you just have to do it" is going to make him grow money to pay a lawyer. He knows he should talk to a lawyer; everyone knows they should talk to a lawyer. I constantly see people saying this, but you might as well tell him to pray to God to solve all his problems. If you had an idea on how to actually obtain him a lawyer instead of "pull up your bootstraps and work it out," he (and I) might find "get a lawyer" useful.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:40 AM
2

with all the cash he has
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:29 AM
0

If anything, being a teacher at Stanford for 40 years makes me even less inclined to listen to a damn word he says. lol. After all, you have a worldview to nurse and protect! The funny thing about him is that he actually justifies uncomfortable facts in American history (which is slightly better than ignoring them altogether, like you)... just like you... and probably for the same reasons. It's too bad you refuse to listen to him because you fear what he might say. The problem with you is that y…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 06:15 AM
-1

You're so cute; you think you have actually made an intelligent point or argument. Is this what qualifies as debate in the military? "You're retarded and facile wikipedia article and blah so there!" And to think many people characterize people in the military as unintelligent! I doubt you even bothered to read your link. In fact, I'm almost certain you didn't. Here is a book written by a Professor of History at Stanford who outlines how the U.S., Roosevelt, and American imperialism led the attac…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:55 AM
1

Apparently you don't understand what the word "imperialism" means. Apparently the only relevant portion of American history to the subject of American imperialism and its effects is 1935-1945. We must ignore American imperialism and American expansion over the Pacific throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries which led to WWI, partly to the Russo-Japanese War, etc., because all of that is irrelevant. The American influence in China, the south Pacific, the Phillipines, control of the sea route…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:47 AM
0

WWII didn't save lives, it caused and exacerbated then. It led to half of Europe and Asia descending into a communist nightmare which led to over a hundred million dead. At some point, objective reality should affect that propaganda filled fairy tale you live in.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:31 AM
1

Good argument; about as articulate and well-reasoned as your other "arguments." A natural response to people pointing out the nonsense in your propaganda is anger so I'm not particularly surprised.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:26 AM
1

A naval base on an island thousands of miles away from the continental U.S. and a strip of mostly uninhabited islands in Alaska can appropriately be characterized as "their homes." WWII was the result of American imperialism intersecting the Japanese. The Japanese didn't want a war with the U.S. and Germany refused to give FDR his excuse to enter, but FDR sure forced the Japanese into a corner where it would be their only option. Calling WWII "defensive" is laughable. If you are actively protect…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:21 AM
0

WW2 is universally thought of as a 'good' war to help and save people, Which is a joke and the belief is untrue anyway.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:18 AM
5

Not to mention the very assumption that a draft requires: that the state owns you, your body, and your life and can sacrifice all of those things for any cause it deems fit. This is perverse thinking and has lead to some of the largest human catastrophes in history.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:14 AM
0

American involvement in WWII was unnecessary. FDR goaded the Japanese until they attacked the U.S.A. with economic penalties (embargoes, asset freezes, etc.) and military support for their enemies. He did all of these things purposefully to get the Japanese to give him a reason to enter the war with popular support. At the start of WWII, the vast majority of Americans were resoundingly against war. American involvement in WWI was even more unnecessary and probably led to many more deaths in a wa…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:11 AM
0

Men are not your playthings to order to the front when you find it necessary. If men are unwilling to sacrifice themselves for a cause which you believe in, perhaps you should question whether that cause is just or necessary.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:08 AM
1

The book is a conglomeration of explanation and citation for the various assertions. Read it or not.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:21 PM
2

It's rather odd to talk in such vague generalities. I have no idea what "left-wing" anarchism means to you and that can apply to different beliefs. Ignoring the practicality of such an assertion, left-wing anarchism rejects all hierarchical relationships and the existence of private property itself. I reject both assertions.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:16 PM
1

Well, it seems to me like the left wing and the right wing both support state intervention I qualified my statement with "of the MRM." In my experience, the thing that separates the two in the MRM is more or less state intervention. Right-wing leaning MRAs tend to favor abolishing state programs which privilege females over males. Left-wing leaning MRAs tend to favor more intervention.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:02 PM
1

The thing is while they would exist they'd cost more. lol. Read the book or not. Cheers.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:59 PM
0

As for the first part of my definition, I've talked to people on the right who say things like, "The world is unfair. In caveman days it was survival of the fittest and I don't see why it should be any different today. If there are poor people capitalism isn't to blame, but rather a lack of effort or luck on their part." This is known as "vulgar libertarianism" and it has adherents on both ends of the spectrum. Are you saying that you disagree with all that? Yes, I disagree. Free market anarchis…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:55 PM
1

You again assume that in the absence of state production, none of those things would exist (with the small exception of "public defenders" as they are defined to be state provided). Given history, this assumption is incorrect. At this point it's obvious you don't want to engage in a productive or meaningful discussion. If I misjudged and you are interested, I would suggest reading The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. Cheers.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:49 PM
1

You assume that if the state didn't force everyone to pay for the roads, they wouldn't exist. That is a false assumption. Roads would still exist even if the state didn't provide them. History proves this the case. The state over-provides roads which leads to pollution, congestion, suburban sprawl (and all the inefficiencies associated), urban decay, etc. I do not net benefit from the state production of roads.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:40 PM
1

Hence me qualifying "on net benefit" and then providing an example of why the statement "you benefit from social programs" is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. Defining "benefit" in a manner where one could claim you benefit from having $20 stolen from you and given a mint is silly.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:20 PM
2

I don't think I on net benefit from the state "providing" roads. State subsidization of roads leads for there to be too many roads causing many of the problems with pollution, suburban sprawl, urban decay, etc., that we see across most of the developed world. Not to mention the corporate/rich handouts given to friends of government actors to "provide" roads. I don't think I benefit from that.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:11 PM
1

Not on net. You could claim that someone is "benefiting" from a socialist program which gives them "free" mints every morning, but that does mean the "free mints" program net benefits them.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:05 PM
0

No thanks, your facile little tirade tipped off my suspicion that a discussion between us will not be productive. If you propose a characterization which at least signals your desire to engage in a genuine discussion, I might change my mind. What's the core belief that separates the left wing from the right wing That's a good question and the reality of the political landscape makes this very difficult to answer. If I had to propose a distinction which fits across most leftist/rightists, I would…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:33 PM
2

I don't really understand your point Socialists tend to view their solutions as unpoliticized, but in reality they are very politicized. It's perfectly possible for socialism and men's rights to coexist, which is why I just wish we could keep the political debate in r/politics and concentrate on men's rights only here It depends on what "men's rights" actually means, but sure I don't claim that your definition of "men's rights" could exist with socialism or the absence of state intervention alto…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:29 PM
1

Right, I agree with you if you define "right-wing" in a certain manner. Typical "right-wingers" do support state intervention in many things including social values, the military, etc. When I used the term "right-wing," I actually mean classical liberals or "minarchists." In reality, there are people on both ends who support state intervention or even reject the state altogether. Currently, "left-wingers" want more state, not less. I think what best characterizes the right wing is the idea that …
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:22 PM
2

Well of course. The men died, but who cares about them, the women had to deal with their men dying!
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:20 PM
1

I don't think people claim feminism (or at least certain definitions of it) "have" to do anything with communism/socialism, they just typically do in the real world. those can be benefits for society as a whole. Those what? Communism/socialism? No, not at all.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:17 PM
1

Hell, actual libertarians (not fake Glenn Beck Libertarians) are popular in Europe and are considered a leftist political position. What? Libertarians do not fit on the political spectrum very well. The "actual libertarians" in Europe you are referring to are left-wing anarchists. This, however, does not translate very well across the oceans.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:14 PM
1

And if it did, that would be a good thing. Eee gatz. It seems more and more people who are new to the subReddit are leftists. I just feel like mentioning that I am in fact a leftist and socialist, and I'm getting extremely tired of some elements constantly trying to politicise the MRM into a conservative movement. It's only relevant when solutions to problems are discussed. Lefists almost always favor more state intervention to solve the "problems" while "convservatives" which are actually liber…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:12 PM
3

It's more an aversion to state intervention which separates the left-wing and right-wing elements of the MRM. Left wing MRAs tend to support state intervention while right-wing MRAs tend to reject state intervention and recognize many of the issues we face today are a result of state intervention in the first place.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 08:11 PM
45

"I'm glad he ain't hit her back." Apparently kicking someone in the face is the level where some girls might question whether or not he can defend himself. I'd like to think they were saying it because they know the male will be arrested if he defends himself, but I doubt it. I'll wait for her to be released without bail and no charge.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 04:16 PM
1

This is a case study in how the government uses coercion, violence, and attrition to turn co-defendants on each other. It's a case study in how pre-trial detainment gets convictions against people who didn't actually commit the crimes for which they were accused. It's a case study in how social stigma can turn young women into false accusers and the white knights in the legal system come to the rescue.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:27 AM
2

You're going to end up giving them substantial amounts of your non-marital savings and be obligated to pay tens of thousands in child support. Move closer and petition for shared custody or leave the country. If you lose that petition, you will be left with little to live on and you will rarely see your son. If you win, stay.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:10 AM
3

You pay taxes? If you had to guess, do you think men or women benefit more from government spending?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:07 AM
1

Have fun. Her lawyer will suck you dry forcing you to pay her bills to go over information she is forcing you to give her. This is going to cost you a substantial amount of money to fight to court; they're going to brow beat you into an agreement which has you forking over larger parts of your non-marital savings. If I was you, I would transfer my assets overseas and leave. You can send money back to help support your child and you can send him things, but you are going to have your life ruined …
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:01 AM
1

Wait until you get the bill for her lawyer to go through them. It's a shake down, pay up.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:57 AM
-1

It's easier to downvote and ignore instead of actually answering any question about this topic; it's why the mods refused to answer those criticisms and allegations when they proposed doing either of those things previously. Ignatious was receiving a lot of flak for essentially pumping the mod core with mostly feminist flavored and sympathetic "men's rights activists." There were threads every couple of days detailing his poor behavior, biased moderating, and censorship of people he disagreed wi…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 07:46 AM
-4

The mods are primarily a group of friends who protect each other even at the expense of content, accountability, or the MR community. It's the reason why they created mensrightsmeta and the reason why they created anonymous mod accounts. The "doxxing" threat was a convenient reason to get the admins to take the subReddit from Kloo and cement the ownership of the subReddit in ignatiousloyala hands. It's so strange that both of these things occurred when individual moderators were receiving heavy …
/r/MensRights08/12/12 12:46 PM
1

Oh please. They are vague and easily applicable to most forms of political speech.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 03:09 AM
1

That's not a fallacy. Or would you scream "argument from a authority" if I told you that 100% of chemists claim water has hydrogen and oxygen atoms in it?
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:59 AM
-3

Oh yeah, peaceful people directing jack booted thugs to assault and kidnap dangerous little women for their hurtful words. Just like the costumed thugs who arrested that Hasidic Jew for distributing leaflets telling people to resist conscription.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:57 AM
1

Telling a person who harmed you what they did to you can help you get over it and forgive them.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:57 AM
0

What did I generalize? I think someone is a pig if they enforce laws against people who have harmed no one. Could you name a cop which doesn't fit the bill? Oink oink.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:55 AM
0

If you cannot follow the conversation, perhaps you should stick to downvotes instead of jumping in the pool.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:53 AM
0

Yeah, good thing we have you to decide what actual hate speech is. I don't trust you to determine what is permitted and what is not. I don't trust you to determine what I can hear or say.
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:53 AM
1

You're using anecdotal incorrectly. Anecdote Nothing because we're not talking about that We're talking about bad cops. A symptom of bad cops, as I noted in my original post, is the blue code of silence. It does. "It has been true since XXX" is an untrue statement. It has been true for the federal government. It was smart to ignore my questions about FOIA requests and other public records requests. Generally, it is not possible to get the misconduct/discipline/investigation records. Hence, if yo…
/r/MensRights07/12/12 08:48 AM
-1

If only the comment I responded to talked about the people blocking the building (it didn't). It talked about mean, hurtful words.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 03:02 PM
-2

I appreciate it. The right to freedom of speech is an important issue for men's rights as these same exact laws and rationalizations are used against MRAs, against their gatherings, and against their activities. Police corruption and abuse is rampant in the United States and it almost always is perpetrated on males. Many times it is perpetrated on males in the name of protection of women. I am rather disheartened with the way many in the community respond to either of these issues, but I guess I…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:51 PM
-1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14cw8z/proudly_representing_u_of_toronto/c7c63z0
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:41 PM
-2

The user I replied to was talking about speech and hate speech and shutting others up (or down) because of speech, not about attacking people or barricading doors. If you cannot follow along, perhaps you should stick to downvoting instead of trying to jump in the pool.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:40 PM
-5

You know who you could talk to about free speech? You should tell the Hasidic Jew who was sentenced to prison for distributing leaflets in Yiddish speaking out against conscription and American involvement during WWI because that was the language used to send him to prison . There are a number of problems with your comment. Mainly, hate speech is not yelling "fire!" But I apparently stumbled into a bunch of idiots on my way to a rational discussion. This thread is certainly opening my eyes as to…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:38 PM
-2

If only LE conduct actually lived up to that fairy tale you live in. As long as the blue code of silence, rampant corruption, and official immunity exists to protect violent, costumed thugs, I will continue to accurately describe them. Those three things are offensive to civilized people. I'm sad you disagree. Cheers.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:22 PM
-2

You are smart to avoid that conversation. Think of the cognitive dissonance if you actually had to recognize that cops are appropriately described as costumed thugs! "I'm not going to play your semantics game!" Words have meanings, who knew!? LE conduct is deliberately offensive to civilized people. Protecting violent lunatics is offensive to civilized people. You probably don't want to play the "I'm offended!" game here either. Until you answer my simple questions, I'm not going to answer yours…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:16 PM
0

Yeah, I can agree with that statement. I have no problem with cops defending themselves from violent protesters, but that isn't what the user was asserting. This user was talking only about speech; I find macing people because of their speech abhorrent and I would hope the MRM would understand and even agree... I guess not. Oh well, I've got plenty of karma to burn criticizing the Toronto PD, LE in general, or people encouraging the macing or use of violence against people for speech.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:07 PM
0

Explain to her what she did to you, how it has harmed you, and give her a chance to explain her actions and/or apologize. That's how healthy people communicate and forgive each other. It will be awkward and uncomfortable, but most important conversations are.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:46 PM
-2

His mother had him strapped to a board and a part of penis removed with a sharp object probably without anesthetic because she didn't really think about it or wanted to follow the trend and your advice is to tell him not to antagonize the person who had this done to him? That's ridiculous. He should confront the person responsible for his anger/sadness/etc. so they understand how they harmed him and give them a chance to explain themselves and/or apologize; that is how healthy relationships work…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 01:40 PM
-2

If you cannot be bothered to answer my questions, I'm not going to answer yours. So why is "costumed thug" not an accurate description of law enforcement? Or did you want to go with the "because it's offensive." I'll wait for those definitions. If you cannot be bothered to read or understand my comments, I'm not going to type them out. edit: Here are mine. Thug Costume A cop is a violent person who wears a costume; thus, they are costumed thugs.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:56 PM
-13

I thought I would go with the "lol" response to someone equating violation of laws against free speech to violation of laws against murder because of free speech because I thought it was enough (along with the actual "argument") for others to laugh and/or dismiss Jazzeki. I guess you needed a little more. You violate laws against speech by speaking. You violate laws against murder by murdering; it's impossible to murder with speech. The argument is irrelevant, irrational nonsense, but he topped …
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:48 PM
-2

So why is "costumed thug" not an accurate description of law enforcement? Please, provide me a definition of thug and costume which excludes law enforcement without committing a tautology with something like "unlawful." Beyond your hurt feelings, I doubt you really have any idea what to say at this point. So you double down with insults, fallacious reasoning, and ignorant claims. Hint: Anarchists do think "police" should exist.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 12:07 PM
-2

If you are going to insult someone, you should at least do it correctly. Do you know what the word "integrity" means? Apparently not. But tell me, why is "costumed thugs" not an accurate description of law enforcement?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:49 AM
-20

Careful, you may have a meaningful thought if you think too much. The sad thing is I bet you actually think you said something rational or even clever.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 11:04 AM
-3

But that's not what the user was complaining about. He was not complaining about protesters blocking pathways, he was complaining about the language used by people and the language used by people in power. To which I responded, "would you prefer macing them." And the other user said, "I sure would." Macing people for speech, even if it is hate speech, is authoritarian.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 10:03 AM
2

walrusknowsbest doesn't know very much about this topic. I seriously doubt walrus does know best.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 09:01 AM
-4

Did you read the links? That wasn't "occassional assholes"; that was institutional abuse and widespread blue silence. Read the links. No, I don't think cops are "generally pretty decent" if they're willing to do any of that. If you were talking about the rest of the country and not the Toronto PD, then I don't know.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 07:04 AM
-2

Also, I didn't see you demand statistical evidence from the guy claiming there is a 20 to 1 ratio of good cops to bad or any support for my claim that it was unsupportable. Instead, you went right into trying to attack my claim that good cops are few and far between. Careful, your bias is showing. If it's ridiculous to think there are few good cops, it's just as ridiculous to think (including yourself) there are only a few bad applies. Anecdotal evidence can provide quite a good look into a situ…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:38 AM
-2

This is incorrect, we have statistics compiled by the CATO institute from news reports of police misconduct. Do you not understand what "conglomerated anecdotal evidence" means? What does this have to do with the blue code of silence? Don't worry, I know you didn't look at this either. You just found it in a google search and linked it like the other garbage you didn't read. Police departments are required to supply the news with public record requests federally and every state has similar laws,…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:28 AM
-22

Right, I'll lump you in with the other user that supports censorship. It's interesting because feminists are trying to use that same legislation against MRAs in Canada.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:24 AM
-9

People started waking up and discarding the silly stories they were taught when they were children about "public servants." Mountains of stories about police misconduct, how it is handled by police departments, and how people are generally treated tends to do that. The only people I know who still believe that nonsense are either LE themselves, have close friends or family in LE, or are oblivious, well-off white kids who haven't had much experience with law enforcement. I have worked both with L…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:16 AM
-4

Oh, yeah? Tell me about it. Here's some more. I mean honestly, the Toronto PD were basically a shining example of LE. You're right though. At least some of them are actually being punished.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:10 AM
-5

They don't exist. Governments tried to make a national database (and even a state database) to keep track of police misconduct and to provide names for cops who were caught behaving badly in order to stop them from being employed elsewhere. Guess who stopped that endeavor? So all we have is conglomerated anecdotal evidence and what it reveals about the departments in which it happens, but that doesn't mean we are unable to make any generalized statements. I don't have statistics about geese, but…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:50 AM
-12

Right, I don't claim there are zero good cops. I just dispute that there are very many. If there were, there wouldn't be such as thing as the blue code of silence. The cops that are good are weeded out, fired, or quit. It's funny how all the stories speak of the blue code of silence and how it is so dangerous for officers to speak out against other officers. Only in a society as fucked up as ours would SWAT be commended for refusing to evict someone. You mischaracterized what I had said in our l…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:34 AM
-9

Probably not Given the ever growing mountain of evidence about the blue code of silence (including judicial findings about its existence), they most likely are. Cops who cover for violent, power-tripping pigs are not good cops. It's funny (in a sick sort of way); when we see these incidents the most interesting thing to me is how the other cops react. They don't react at all. Sometimes they join in. At some point "isolated incidents" doesn't really hold back the riding tide. Oh I don't know, com…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:08 AM
-12

Yeah, hypocrisy is where we should take it. Let's get down on their level. They're screaming insults and we are ordering costumed thugs to beat them for it. That will teach them!
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:05 AM
-17

Yeah, censor those protesters. That will show them we care about free speech. Who cares? They are saying things we don't like and it hurts our feelings!
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:58 AM
7

Good luck; you'll need it.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:55 AM
-23

Authoritarians among us. This is why we cannot have nice things.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:44 AM
-10

Are those the same 20 cops that build up the wall of silence and refuse to turn in the violent power-tripping pigs in their ranks? And protect and lie for them? Yeah, I have been alive for too long and dealt with too many cops to believe that lie we were taught when we were children. Tell me kiddo, how do you know that is true?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:41 AM
-37

Would you prefer cops macing protestors?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:15 AM
-15

Regardless, in this case, they were protecting innocent people from violent protestors, and the fact that they were ridiculed for doing so is disgusting. They were ridiculed for being pigs. Pigs can do things you agree with, but that doesn't make them less pigs.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:15 AM
1

What can I say? That's asinine and it is invasive both physically and legally. A father's name isn't required on a birth certificate. What I'd like to see is that paternity testing become a routine test at a newborn screen and done by default unless the puported father declines it or if his identity is unknown. I could live with this. As long as DNA info is not stored and alleged fathers are not forced to provide DNA.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 04:07 AM
1

I mean both. If I didn't want something stuck in my mouth, I would consider sticking something in my mouth invasive. Would you agree? Again, routine newborn screening already collects blood (and therefore DNA) from the kids. So it's already quite legally invasive, but justified under improving public health Is this mandatory (as in government forced)? I understand that many things are taken and done while in the hospital, but not because they are legally mandated. It is my impression that this i…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 12:36 PM
1

"I want to have the baby DNA tested to check for the genetic markers of some known diseases."
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:31 AM
1

I don't know why this is being downvoted. "The government ought to do force people to do...." is rarely a good answer.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:25 AM
1

Circumcision is quite invasive, yet people go on without impunity. Circumcision isn't mandated. yet it mandates so many things to the detriment of men. Which makes mandating things fine apparently. I'll write the conservative talkshow hosts.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:23 AM
2

The user you downvoted isn't against paternity testing, he is against government mandated paternity testing. Sticking a swab in someone's mouth against their will is invasive. It's why the state needs a warrant to do it to you against your will. The state could simply require proof of paternity in order to write the father's name on the birth certificate.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:22 AM
2

Government mandated seizure of DNA from both child and father is invasive. While I agree that they should be done, I vehemently disagree that we need the government in it. Mass collection of personal information is rarely a good thing. The state could simply require proof of paternity in order to write the father's name on the birth certificate.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:20 AM
2

I've been in full combat gear. It's not so much fun. And probably even less fun in 120 degree heat. Women should be "allowed" in the infantry in that it's possible if they can demonstrate they are capable based on gender neutral metrics. I've never heard anyone claim it was "easy."
/r/MensRights05/12/12 11:02 AM
1

Do you not have expungement or record sealing in England? You can usually get all of this expunged (like it never happened) from public records once you are acquitted in the U.S.
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:55 AM
3

You see less of an effort to censor groups who explicitly hate minority groups and even preach they should be weeded out of the population. The man was on the NOW BOD and a prominent feminism supported. Did he magically change to woman hating?
/r/MensRights05/12/12 10:52 AM
9

The courts determine my income based off my "historical earning potential". Forced labor; how quaint.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 08:39 AM
6

So you are responsible for the care of a woman for life who you were only "married" to for 4 1/2 years? That's... abhorrent. If I was you, I would quit my job, go to school, and see how long that disability lasts. Actually, I'm pretty sure I would up and leave if she was awarded lifetime alimony.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 07:44 AM
3

Not sure, but I have heard that If she somehow draws this out to 10 years, you will owe her lifetime alimony in California. You should really get things moving along if possible. That may include moving to another state to obtain residency and filing for divorce ex parte. Sounds like a nightmare.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 04:51 AM
1

I won't go into my beliefs, because I'm freakin' 20 and have conflicting, contrary and probably super under-educated opinions. No, this cannot be a 20 year old. This must be fake.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 01:41 AM
1

That's not how laws work. Please cite to me the relevant statutes you claim supports this distinction. The problem with these laws is they are very broad; they criminalize quite a bit of conduct most people wouldn't consider criminal. And never mind the damage done by a news report, even if there is no conviction. Or the enormous expense many defendants and their families bear; Even if they aren't detained pre-trial. When people are detained pre-trial, it's even worse. In the end, the state gets…
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:53 PM
1

Perhaps, I misread your comment. I am talking about statutes and law. I'm waiting for a citation to statutes or legal decisions. I don't really care what non-legal people think when we are talking about how statutes apply to people.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 04:12 PM
1

It counts as child porn when it is made even if it was not made to be child porn and by immediate family. I have no idea where you found these qualifications in statutes or legal decisions, but I would be glad to see the basis for this opinion. These statutes are basically the playthings of bored prosecutors who want to make a name for themselves by destroying people for innocent, unlawful conduct.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 08:54 PM
1

I haven't heard many stories of mothers being prosecuted for having naked pictures of their children, have you?
/r/MensRights01/12/12 08:52 PM
2

I like wikipedia, but they are and it's the reason I refuse to give them money.
/r/MensRights29/11/12 11:04 AM
3

I'm sorry, but I find this absolutely hilarious.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 09:19 PM
1

There's a subreddit on reddit called r/feminism, but it isn't even remotely feminist. The subreddit is literally[1] overrun with MRAs and antifeminists. TIL. The post is mostly quote mining and blatant misrepresentation of arguments (ex. Men don't shock puppies, women do - links to a post claiming "54% of men shock puppies, 100% of women shock puppies"), but he does have some valid arguments. Most of them are emotional reactions to statements of fact backed up by scientific study. She repeats ra…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:54 PM
5

I'm not talking about a secret trial How would people know the person had been arrested? Etc.? What about pre-trial detainment (which is common in the U.S.A.)? I'm saying either both the accuser and accused should be named or neither should, no halfsies. I think we both agree that halfsies is ridiculous. The reason accusations should be public (and have been for the vast majority of the American legal system) is because it forces people to give proper weight to what they are doing.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:36 PM
-1

We don't know if he is guilty or not even after the jury hands down their decision and the judge hands down his sentence.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:09 PM
9

I don't. We don't need people disappearing into prisons with unknown charges; that is why the founders agreed a public trial and accusation were essential to a justice system. Accusers should be public. Always. The legislature has removed part of that deal.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:03 PM
17

Although the victim failed to identify Mukhtar as her attacker at first, she did identify him after the recess Oh yeah, she managed that?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 04:48 PM
1

My only comment is don't give up on your kid (not saying you have). Write her letters, send her gifts, etc., to make sure she know you are thinking about her. I know it is tough and it will be. I fully understand the system has fucked you over and your wife is trying to ruin your relationship with your child, but children grow up and realize their fathers wanted to be there the whole time.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 02:58 PM
1

She starts yelling at the police!! The officers were as shocked as I was. So shocked they radio for a female officer. The police try to calm her down, and explain that she has no right to be in my house, and that If I ask her to leave, she needs to leave. I wonder what would happen if this had been your conduct. that she only likes me for my money The foreclosed house? And $2,200 a month in spousal support (let's be honest, how much "child support" is actually child support?)? Yeah, you sound lo…
/r/MensRights28/11/12 02:48 PM
31

Johnsen accused another former boyfriend of rape and kidnapping in 1997, and the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence. Must be coincidence.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 05:56 PM
2

Publishing someone's name on the internet, alone, is not doxxing. Doxxing is revealing someone's name who is trying to remain anonymous. Someone who sends you an email signed with his real name is not being "doxxed" when you print his name on the internet.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:49 PM
2

How? I asked for help, and how can I expect help from people unless I give them all the information You confirmed that you are that person and that is your real name by making this post. You could have blanked out all the important identifiers. any numb-nut can check the roster and see that it is, in fact, me Well, they can check and see that the name is from that school, but they cannot see that it was that person who wrote the email. This post confirms that you are that real person who exists …
/r/MensRights27/11/12 03:32 PM
2

The result today would be very different That is exactly what people thought back then. because this issue has been raised so much since then and more people are aware of the need to constantly question 'authority'. Right. If people understand what they are being tested for and know of the results of the previous studies, it will probably make them act different. You have to pick populations which have neither.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:58 PM
2

You know, that is what nearly everyone thought back then too. I suspect most republican-like thinking people would keep obeying and most liberals would be more likely to disobey. Right, the liberals have such an excellent track record throughout history for not following authority. This partisan crap is so tiring.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:52 PM
3

No, real, fluffy puppies.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:50 PM
4

Does anyone actually read the articles which are posted? They used real, fluffy puppies. Instead of using an actor, they would use an actual victim who would really get shocked. Obviously they couldn't use a human for this purpose, so they used the next best thing — a cute, fluffy puppy.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:50 PM
2

Well, the worst thing you could do is confirm that it was your real name by making this post. I wouldn't worry about it.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:05 PM
0

Wait, what? This isn't doxxing. He voluntarily sent her his name. Doxxing doesn't mean "publishing someone's real name on the internet."
/r/MensRights27/11/12 02:04 PM
1

I'm not saying it is voluntary. I never did. I just said I would be happy to pay for subsidising contraception. Excellent! I'm glad we agree that taxation is the forcible taking of money. So why did you repeatedly use the term 'brown people'? For emotive impact I dare say. To imply that people who support the bombing of brown people overseas are somewhat racist or xenophobic. It was a loaded question to nudge towards agreeing that taxation is the forcible taking of money. I do see the value in t…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:32 PM
0

My point is that subsidising birth control actually takes less money in the long run from the tax payer. Do you have a study or statistic you can cite to show this is actually the case? If not, how do you form such an opinion?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:12 PM
0

Hopefully you at least read my comment. I'm guessing you have no study which shows universally free contraceptives reduce unplanned pregnancies or even just pregnancies as you completely ignored that part of my comment as well as my various questions you ignored. "You agree to subsidizing contraception therefore you must be ok with bombing Afghanistan" No, that was not my argument or my implication. If taxation is voluntary, then you voluntarily agree to pay for bombing in Afghanistan. You seeme…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 02:06 PM
0

This may be an afterthought, but are you aware of any studies which actually show universal free contraceptives (more than just condoms) actually reduces the number of pregnancies? With all due respect, 'tax' is the correct term, 'forcibly taken' is your way of trying to sensationalize the word. Sensationalizing the word would be to call it "theft." I simply used the definition of the word in place of the word you would prefer. Just because accurate descriptions make you upset does not mean I am…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:41 PM
-4

I don't know why robbing victims of their agency helps any victims get over their victimizations. And I tire of the attempt to shout down anyone who points out that agency can be very empowering and that sometimes victims are partly to blame for their victimizations.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:07 PM
-2

they're making the point that regardless of what the woman does... the rape is not her fault. Um... what? Robbing rape victims of their agency through this raging attack on anyone claiming they do is not helpful for victims. Sometimes what a woman or man does are partly responsible for their victimizations. And it is comforting to know that you can avoid being victimized in the future and not simply being subject to random attacks by demented fuck rapist.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 01:04 PM
0

If by 'forcibly taking' you mean 'taxing', then that is not a fact - it's your opinion. We might as well crank the doublespeak machine to full speed. Taxation is the forcible taking of money. If the money was not forcibly taken, there wouldn't be a need for the tax in the first place. If it does prevent unwanted pregnancy then both women and men benefit. Sure, but not equally (even if only analysed as a contraceptive). And a significant portion of women on contraceptives (when they are not free)…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 12:49 PM
0

Money is already being taken for courts, welfare for single parents etc - subsidising contraceptives in the short term has a greater financial benefit in the long term. Right. You are already forcibly taking money from people and want to forcibly take more in order to maybe decrease the future money forcibly taken... maybe. Forcibly taking money from others is wrong. Subsidising birth control, be it implanon, the pill, condoms etc is not subsidising 'bad decisions' Some people disagree with you,…
/r/MensRights26/11/12 11:18 AM
29

How the fuck can you be locked up for being paranoid? Civil involuntary commitment. The state puts you in prison based on a finding that more like than not, you are a danger to yourself or society. And they can do this indefinitely. Don't worry though, generally only men are imprisoned this way... and who gives a fuck about men?
/r/MensRights26/11/12 09:28 AM
1

I'm growing ever more confused about what factors are in place to keep the system accountable In practice? The good ethics of the participants. The problem with this is that the type of people who are prosecutors are usually self-righteous zealots that think they are doing God's work. Where do you think most judges come from? Former prosecutors. Do people just get fired sometimes if they fuck up often enough and get found out? Sometimes. In my experience, prosecutors get fired for not following …
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:56 AM
0

So I dare say you and I would have significantly different opinions on the matter anyway. You're right, I don't support forcibly taking money from people to subsidize the poor decisions of others. I think it's wrong.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 07:54 AM
-1

No. You are forcing those who have no say in your sex life to pay for it. It is wrong to force others to subsidize your choices. "Free contraceptives" isn't free. The money is forcibly taken from those who do not have sex, do not want contraceptive, and do not want to pay for your contraceptives. Why should they be forced?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:41 PM
1

Selective enforcement of a web of laws which make us all criminals.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:31 PM
1

Nation and soldier worship are disgusting.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:29 PM
1

I know she loves me Would someone who loves you volunteer you to go off and risk dying so she doesn't have to live a little leaner? We aren't talking about a starving family, we are talking about a spoiled woman accustomed to the luxuries. I honestly think you should reconsider your future with this woman. She apparently doesn't care much about your needs, wants, or desires, and thinks hers are paramount.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:24 PM
-1

Meh, this is vague, unproductive nonsense. Cheers.
/r/MensRights25/11/12 10:33 AM
2

If you voluntarily contract I didn't voluntarily contract with the state. The threatened me to enter this agreement and I couldn't refuse. If the bank came to me and threatened me to enter a contract, I would see more similarity between the two situations. Public good does have a specific meaning, and you clearly do not know what it is. I don't know what you mean because you are using the term in a way that is contrary to the accepted definition. Which is why I asked. Pure public goods are nonex…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 05:13 AM
2

It collects your voluntary payment or you can shirk on your voluntary payment, running the risk of the people charging you with a crime for violating your legal obligation. Interesting. So the government threatens you with violence if you do not give them your voluntary payment. If a robber comes up to you and demands you give him your wallet or he will kill you, do you "voluntarily give" the robber your wallet? If yes, you are going to have to define "voluntary" for me because most people requi…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:37 AM
1

If we removed official immunity from state actors, they could be punished for their roles in falsely imprisoning people. The courts should penalize prosecutors who wrongly convict innocent men and penalize defendants who did not adequately defend them. What a fabulous dream. Currently prosecutors are immune to any consequences taken within the duties of being a prosecutor (within reason).
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:21 AM
0

government is held more to it's results and as such has to focus more on the nuts and bolts. What? Unless you mean employing government workers, I honestly have no idea you could have formed this opinion based on simple observation of modern, government run programs. My knowledge of charities is that they are poorly run and drama first focused. Don't give to them, they fail. Give to ones which you think are run better and focus on things you find relevant. If you actually give to any charities a…
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:20 AM
2

I think I would prefer a graduated system of punishments for false accusers.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 07:24 PM
3

Those who are old and need help should fall under the same umbrella as the homeless and other unemployed. I'm glad you agree. There are apparently many others who agree as well or this wouldn't have passed in a democratic system. the government does a better job Why? Because it can forcibly collect more than people would be willing to voluntarily give completely irrelevant to the success, efficiency, or actual effects of the program? Government can certainly raise more revenue than private chari…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 06:40 PM
1

But that isn't what the prosecutor said. She was talking about people coming forward about sexual assaults; she was not talking about people coming forward about lying about sexual assaults. Do you think she would still confess? Yes. Because she knew when she confessed now that it was possible that she would be imprisoned for purposefully and unlawfully ruining another person's life. "Well, I feel bad, but not bad enough to go to jail for 9 years." And that poor guy would still be in prison. Yes…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 05:00 PM
2

She lied about rape because she was disappointed in her father after her parents divorced. Wow. Yet another story when you are forced to recognized the trivial nonsense which is enough to have your life ruined.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:56 PM
0

Sadly, this last comment had about the same level of thought and analysis as your previous ones. Nothing quite as funny as a ranting child screaming insults and telling another to "grow up." Don't delete this dialogue like you have with our other conversations. I'd like to refer back to it. Also. If anyone wants to continue to follow the discussion going on in pms: Nodbugger: Go.Fuck.Yourself. Me: Well, if you were trying to convince anyone that soldiers are not facile, shallow, raging neanderth…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:37 PM
0

Sigh, I let you get this off into irrelevant nonsense again. If you are going to constantly use words differently than accepted definitions, you should probably define terms before trying to engage in rational discourse (key word: trying). Male disposability is a mens' rights issue and should be discussed on a mens' rights forum. Typically your responses are filled with passive aggressive insults and severely lacking in actual argument or rational thought. Cheers.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:32 PM
0

For anyone wanting to follow the conversation in pms, Nodbugger sent me this pm. Fucking loser. Here is my reply: If you continue to send pms to me like this, I'll have to report you for harassment. I understand you are butthurt that I continue to make you look foolish, but this is immature and a bit pathetic.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:31 PM
0

You understand that "racism" is a similarly defined term? No, of course you don't. You continue that war on accepted definitions of words because you want to desperately avoid being wrong. I'll be leaving you to continue that rant alone, but I will re quote a particular gem you wrote to save it in case you delete or heavily edit your comments (which you have done in the past). And it isn't discrimination if there is a valid reason to do it.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:15 PM
1

oldiers sign on the dotted line to make themselves expendable If only that was actually always the case. How is this a gender issue? Males are pressured and expected to sacrifice themselves.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 04:06 PM
2

God forbid you actually respond to my actual argument than present some facile analogy and think you have said something interesting. War doesn't disproportionately affect men because of some type of sexism, and it because men are biologically better for it. You understand that biological differences which lead to discrimination based on sex is, in fact, "sexism"? No, of course you don't. If women were killed in war just as often as men you wouldn't see a problem You're right, I wouldn't see a p…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 03:58 PM
1

I tire of the constant "don't blame yourself, you couldn't help it, blah blah" you constantly see after stories like this. I have never been victimized like this, but I think reinforcing my agency and convincing myself that I have the power to make sure it doesn't happen to me again is endlessly more empowering than the myopic comforting which convinces people to rob themselves of their own agency and make them feel helpless.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 10:31 AM
1

A person is not factually guilty or innocent because a court said they were factually guilty or innocent. No disagreement. A person is proven guilty when physical evidence and logical argumentation are combined to make a case beyond reasonable doubt that said person did in fact commit a crime. Are witness statements "physical evidence"? If not, I would hope you would include them in this analysis. The government can say otherwise, but that will not change physics. I agree.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:25 AM
2

Mine too. Her third comment was, "If this had been a girl held down by boys and kissed, the boys would be in handcuffs." I guess the principal was smart enough to not respond in the same way he responded to me when I said something similar. He said, "It's different. Boys like attention. I wonder why you don't."
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:13 AM
1

It is like a feminist being upset that men don't die from complications during child birth. I don't care that women don't die from war, I care that men die from war because war harms them disproportionately. Not everything is an "us versus them" contest. But the fact still remains that males are biologically superior to women when it comes to war. I don't think you are going to have many people on this forum who disagree with. I don't. not what is fair and men are better at war. An excellent exa…
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:10 AM
2

No, I didn't sue anyone. I was pretty content with apologies. My mother is amazing and I am lucky.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:03 AM
2

Yeah, I have many more stories like that. Luckily I don't think I have had it as bad as your friend.
/r/MensRights23/11/12 08:01 AM
1

I'm sure that mentality supports why it's appropriate to convict women accused of paternity fraud (or other crimes) before trial and it also reinforces my point. The importance of the presumption of innocence in this subReddit seem to highly correlate with gender of perpetrator and victim and the alleged crime.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 01:04 PM
2

It's a wonder why children are so starved for male attention.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 12:10 PM
1

Strangely, I don't see this forum springing to voice this mentality when a female is accused of paternity fraud. It may come up, but usually in some random comment with few upvotes and seemingly as an afterthought by a disgusted individual user. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the notion that people should be presumed innocent before the state uses violence against them, but I find that high horse missing most of its legs.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 11:38 AM
3

War harms males disproportionately. This makes it an issue which should be discussed in a forum about mens' issues. Deal with it. The comment was made to discuss how the concept of male disposability harms males especially in the context of war and how society views the violence against males differently than any others.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 11:33 AM
2

Which is very odd considering men are much more likely to be threatened with violence or have violence used against them than women.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 11:25 AM
32

Related story: This is going to sound like /r/greatproblemstohave, but I was that boy (or one of them). When I was in the seventh grade, I was held down by a bunch girls who had a crush on me and kissed repeatedly. I told them to stop and warned them I would make them stop if they didn't, but they thought it was great. I slammed one of their heads into the ground causing blood to spill out all over the floor and they ran away. Would have appreciate a teacher like you. The only teacher who saw it…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 11:18 AM
6

Feminism: Agency when a compliment, lack of agency when a criticism. Women are strong! (unless they do something we don't like in which case they were merely puppets being controlled by "the menz" and "the society")
/r/MensRights15/11/12 06:45 PM
3

If they had to have policy discussions and mod abuse discussions in the main subreddit, the users of the subreddit might actually read it or be involved. And the mods may actually be accountable to the community. We cannot have that!
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:02 PM
-1

Unidentified anonymous mods (who are the same people) decide on policy changes after they posted in a Reddit they created where no one reads the submissions other than the mods and a few of their friends.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:01 PM
7

the white males in the mines of Great Britain or the rest of the vast majority of white males in abject poverty during the vast majority of human history (even now) were sure having a wonderful experience.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 07:44 PM
1

Segregation was a state enforced separation of blacks and whites and a violation of the freedom of association. I most certainly do not believe in segregation; that, however, does not mean I think men with guns should attack people for keeping others off their property for whatever reasons they may have. Apparently you think people should be forced to associate with each other against their will and you think guns and violence should be used to force them. That is absolutely heinous. Is this the…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:32 PM
2

They don't seem to care very much about the father's feelings when they start leveling accusations or criticisms when he causes the death of his children. It seems most people will go out of their way to avoid blaming women for their conduct, but will press hard down on a male at the slightest error. Ex. Woman drowns children in a bath tub. What is the first thing we hear? Somehow it was the father's fault for not being home more. For not spending more time with the mother. For not recognizing t…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:13 PM
7

We would be hearing about the horrible negligence and neglect of the Father by choosing to still be on Staten Island even though it had been subject to an evacuation order, driving around in a hurricane, and getting out of his vehicle with his two children.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:00 PM
35

If the mother's story is true: Why was the mother driving around in hurricane Sandy? Why had she not located shelter before Sandy hit Staten Island? Why was she still on Staten Island (with her children)? There was an evacuation order on Staten Island. I'll be honest, I seriously doubt the woman or the man is telling the truth, but in a situation where the woman has to either explain why she caused the deaths of her children or blame it on some man, I'm going to take whatever she has to say with…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:55 PM
1

I wouldn't want to continue trying to rationalize your argument either. Perhaps another time. Cheers.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:01 PM
1

I reject this, as it makes the core of your claim that not encountering someone is more dangerous than encountering anyone. wat? I never made this claim. A premise of my argument is that police contact is more dangerous than no police contact (all else being equal). I'm guessing you are either incredibly confused or made a pretty serious typo. While that is obviously true, it would be true for anyone officer or not. So what? This doesn't discount my position, it merely states the argument is app…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 03:44 PM
1

You sound like the knee-jerk feminist you try and belittle and insult from time to time. Which makes this statement incredibly ironic, you hypocrite. The respect I did have for you is plummeting. It's OK for some restaurants to bar black people? You sound like a monster. As opposed to your alternative? Which is sending men with guns to arrest them, throw them in a cage, and seize their property because they want to use their own property in a manner which you disagree with and doesn't harm anyon…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:25 PM
1

That's exactly what my percentages show. Some number is larger than zero. Your percentages and your argument absolutely do not show that you are in less danger when in contact with police. You tried to take a terrible survey of police misconduct and conviction rates and tried to claim that people convicted of actual crimes are apparently not counted in my claim. Now you're not advancing the conversation but calling everything irrelevant. It is irrelevant. In the absence of specific statistics on…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 02:05 PM
1

If you say statistics to make this claim don't exist, and we can't extrapolate from statistics that do exist, then how are you possibly justifying your claim What are you trying to extrapolate with the evidence you presented? Your position is predicated on the idea that people doing something illegal are 'in danger' of being arrested instead of arrested because they are putting others in danger. This is completely irrelevant to the assertion that people put themselves in more danger in almost an…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 04:14 PM
1

The best we can do is extrapolate based upon the rate at which police officers are accused of misconduct as opposed to the rate at which the population as a whole is convicted of a crime This is completely irrelevant as to whether you are putting yourself in more danger by calling the cops in almost any situation."Reported misconduct" is absolutely not reported on the nation level (or even state level in most states). Even people who are later convicted of crimes are putting themselves in more d…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 12:09 PM
4

I worked for a few years as a Public Defender in a large city. You almost always want to avoid police contact, especially as a male and even more especially as a minority. So you called a cop to help you because a woman was holding onto your clothing? And you're telling me the cops showed up, threw you against the wall, handcuffed you, searched your pockets and found rolling papers you use for cigarettes? And they arrested you on suspicion of possession of drug paraphernalia? Good thing you call…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 09:46 PM
5

The "reported statistics" are based on two surveys are most definitely not reported statistics on actual violence or threatened violence, but educated guesses based on an allegedly representative survey. Violent police encounters are not reported at the national level (and even at the state level in most states). This doesn't support your argument. When I wrote my comment, I included the important word, "more" in the phrase "more danger." Your report, itself, helps back up this claim. Even if yo…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:41 PM
12

That doesn't support your argument. It only notes absolute numbers of police contact, it doesn't speak at all to the comparison between the danger the person was in prior to police contact and the danger they were in with police contact. 1.6% > 0. I would guess there are quite a few issues with the numbers published by the DOJ or the definitions of "threatened violence" (ex. if I cop detains you for an investigative stop, they are threatening you with violence because you are not free to leave b…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:30 PM
17

Doing smart things while you are being screamed at is a hard thing to do on the fly. Well done.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:10 PM
16

I didn't edit anything. What question did I ask? This statement is ridiculous from both a statistical and a common sense angle. Really now? I'm sure you wouldn't mind citing me these statistics which make such a statement "ridiculous." Cops are armed thugs who tend escalate situations to violence. There are countless examples of people calling the cops for relatively routine things and ending up being arrested, beaten, tasered, shot, or killed. Or perhaps you would like to present an arguments a…
/r/MensRights10/11/12 06:06 PM
19

You claimed there were no reasons not to wait for the cops. My comment explains there are actually quite a few reasons not to wait for the cops. I understand that you would prefer to have a conversation about the speculative consequences of actions I never endorsed (and for which you are guessing), but that is inane to my actual comment.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:49 PM
12

If this happens again, make sure to take a picture of at least their license plate in case you come back to a damaged car (and make sure they see you doing it).
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:46 PM
39

There's no reason not to wait for the cops. Yes. I know whenever I am having troubles with a woman, I want the cops involved. So they can take my I.D., search my person and belongings, and think of a reason to arrest me. Cops are not these angels coming to the protection of citizens. You are putting yourself in much more danger by calling the cops in almost any situation.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:43 PM
27

It's not excessive force to punch someone who is refusing to let go of your shirt and refusing to let you leave. She is simultaneous battering him and falsely imprisoning him. He is allowed to use whatever force necessary to remove her from his shirt and escape.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:40 PM
10

At least some of them were yelling at the woman to let go of his shirt.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:37 PM
26

I think at least some of the men were telling him not to escalate the situations because they knew he would get into trouble.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:36 PM
2

It's easy to tell someone else to sacrifice something in support of what you believe.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:34 PM
3

Two pay essay becomes 50 page essay with footnotes, quotes, and citations.
/r/MensRights10/11/12 05:32 PM
0

freedoms don't stem from the state; they exist independent of the state. When the state infringes on freedoms, they are still infringing on freedoms even if they have special pieces of paper saying otherwise. Saying that it grants freedoms versus prevent the governments ends in the same result. Right, with the infringement of freedoms which the document recognizes exist independent of government grant or authority. People drafted are not indentured servants. a person who signs and is bound by a …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:02 PM
0

Perhaps you fail to realize the role of the federal government versus the role of state government. I realize that it's an infringement on freedom in either case. Only a moron thinks putting on a different hat suddenly makes an infringement on freedom lose its nature. "Yeah, that was the state government though!" Whether the state or federal government is the part infringing is irrelevant to the question of whether freedom is infringed. The war itself did none of those things. Right; not only do…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:55 PM
2

I only wish I could somehow contact her husband and explain to him what he needs to do legally to avoid being on the hold for 21 years of child support for a child he knows isn't his when this marriage inevitably falls apart. And make sure the father of the baby is on the birth certificate so he has at least some rights to be involved in his child's life.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:37 AM
1

Unfortunately, I think there is some truth to that statement. It's typically well-off white males who might have had more "actual freedoms" in practice in years past. But it typically ignores the huge laundry list of infringements on personal, civil, and economic freedom, corruption in business and government, and blatant cronyism perpetrated against everyone else. The sad reality about American history is that government usually took over oppression of peoples when social oppression relaxed. I …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 09:00 AM
-1

"It's a non-sequitur, but I didn't say it was a non-sequitur." Not a freedom granted nor taken Right. The freedom to voluntarily associate is not a freedom infringed when the government prohibits voluntary association between certain individuals. Here's my favorite: Civil War? Not a freedom granted nor taken Right. The freedom to secede from the union, voluntarily associate, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom itself (out of prison), freedom from indentured servitude (draft), among …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 08:46 AM
-1

You're right, I'm holding them to a standard where you don't disqualify people from voting because they are: Average, white male Blacks Other non-whites Catholics Immigrants Non-land owners Women Indians We don't disqualify children as a group because they are "uneducated." We disqualifying children from voting because they are physically and emotional underdeveloped in 2012 and in 1795. This distinction makes your analogy rather poor even if one of the 12 year olds now is "more educated" than a…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:58 PM
4

Unsupported, unargued assertion while conflating ROs and TROs? Well, I know I'm satisfied. The problem with your assertion is that there are well-documented cases of the lax requirements for TROs and ROs especially in domestic situations. All you would have to do is a simple google search. You pulled "millions of frivolous" claims out of your ass. I'm guessing there is a lot more up there. Maybe you could claim you're secretly a judge and you rule on these cases all the time.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:49 PM
0

It seriously was a non-seuitur. . I didn't say that, but since you didn't read what I wrote you wouldn't know that One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same. It seriously was a non-seuitur. Do you know what that is Which part was a non-sequitur? The list of infringements on person, civil, and economic liberty? I don't think that word means what you think it means, but it sounds pretty good and you heard it somewhere so you might as well throw it in there, ami…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:41 PM
2

I'm guessing your trial judge was different than your bail hearing judge(s)? Wow, you are lucky you received a reasonable judge who recognized the error. It's too bad the assigned non-defense attorneys didn't recognize it either. Unfortunately, once you are put on that conveyor belt you are pretty much on it until it gets close to trial.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:36 PM
4

"loophole" lol The "loophole" doesn't exist if you are male. And it can only be exploited endlessly if it's against a male. Restraining orders and TROs most certainly have to do with gender because they are almost always issued against males by women and effect males disproportionately.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:32 PM
4

The statement, "He threatened to harm me," is enough to get a restraining order. Is this "seriously damning evidence" you were speaking about which sets such a high bar? You have literally no idea what you are talking about, so classically you have a very strong opinion on the subject.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:29 PM
4

This is good advice, but that doesn't stop the temporary restraining orders and the calls to police complaining about emails. The real problem is the utter lack of any bar to stop frivolous restraining orders from being issued in the first place. They're not going to stop someone from doing something crazy anyway in the period they are issued, but they have real, very significant consequences on those who have them issued against them. If you owned a gun at the time, you could have been charged …
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:23 PM
1

It's a huge problem country wide. The best thing about these incompetent bureaucrats issuing warrants (even search warrants!) is that it establishes a safe-harbor for police to conduct searches and arrests with respect to evidentiary rules. The worse thing about your story is that it's very hard to figure out how you could defend yourself from such things. You are completely powerless. I'm sorry you went through that and I hope you have a good attorney to press the civil claims. Did the judge pr…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:16 PM
-2

How is this remotely relevant? It's a loaded question trying to assign an assertion to someone who never even implied anything like it. It's elitist to assert: Average, white male adults Blacks Other non-whites Catholics Immigrants Non-land owners Women Indians Among a few others shouldn't be able to vote because they just inherently cannot comprehend government. Or did you want to try and assign the belief that not allowing two day-old babies to vote is "elitist." The reason children cannot vot…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:12 PM
6

A government bureaucrat putting a stamp on a piece of paper they don't give a shit about and destroying your life? Yep. That sounds about right. They don't care because they will never face repercussions unless they do something crazy.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:02 PM
1

He still had ownership over the subReddit as the creator. I know he stopped being involved and made the unfortunate mistake of leaving iggypoo in charge, but that doesn't delete his ownership of the subReddit. Either he voluntarily transferred ownership to Iggypoo and his friends, or the admins removed him and gave the subReddit to Iggypoo and his friends. I would guess it's the latter, but asked a question because I wanted to know.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:50 PM
2

The civil war, however, is still an excellent example of the "fairy tale" United States not exactly protecting "actual freedoms." Also, the debt came with the Fed There was debt and deficits prior to the creation of the Fed. But I do agree wholeheartedly that the Fed has drastically exacerbated this issue.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:21 PM
-1

I didn't realize slavery existed in 1920. "Up until 1920" includes times before 1920. Random rant on other non-sequiturs No thanks. I'm not going to bother. If you wanted to carry on a rational or productive discussion, you wouldn't have started it with this manipulative, abusive rhetoric. I didn't even read past this sentence. I doubt I will have a productive discussion with someone who asserts that 1) chattel slavery didn't exist from the beginning of the U.S. until around 1865 2) a list of in…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:03 PM
9

Legislators already see the name of bills and think, "I dislike sex-traffickers so this must be good." These are people who are paid decent salaries to supposedly... legislate. How in the world is some single father working two jobs and taking care of a few kids going to find time to actually read the bill? They're not; they're going to get a tiny bit of information about it and vote accordingly. In matters of legislation, this is usually a horrible idea.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:38 PM
3

So slavery wasn't an important knock against "actual freedoms"? Neither was state granted monopolies to their friends? State granted monopolies through banking cartels mandated by state licensure? Or throwing people in prison for speech? Pornography? "Obscenity"? State immigration bans on minorities/immigrants? State subsidization of railroad monopolies/lobbies? High tariff to pull money from producers around the country to tunnel it to New England industry? Starting wars to further business int…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:33 PM
0

And you think this was the United States of past years? Which years? The government has always used majority legitimacy to steal from the successful (or unsuccessful) and give to their friends and political causes.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:17 PM
1

They're not very different. Although I think many political rulers are at no longer explicitly racist.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:16 PM
-2

"Success" like slavery? I don't think I would. What, exactly, do you think was "past success"?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:41 PM
5

Founding father idolatry ftw. They were mostly elitist, power hungry racists.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:32 PM
12

There were many reasons the founding fathers limited suffrage and many of them are quite disagreeable and, frankly, heinous in modern contexts.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 03:15 PM
42

Direct democracy is such a horrible idea. You will win passage of laws purely based on what their names are. Proposition 35 seems to be a great example of this.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 02:28 PM
1

The disputes between moderators and community members and rule changes attempting to make criticism of moderators more difficult gave me a rather bad taste in my mouth. Interestingly, your responses to criticisms gaining traction against you or your friends is to make criticism more difficult. I guess you moved beyond simply ignoring them or engaging in insult shouting contests. What was your response to community supported criticisms of moderators? First, you make metaMR to make sure typical co…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:00 PM
1

If I remember correctly, she punched him while he was driving.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 10:46 AM
8

"Men" are not some monolithic group. This is akin to claiming men are to blame for men being slaves because one man enslaved the other men.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 10:27 AM
1

Why are all the mods of the subReddit now using fake usernames?
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:13 AM
1

A holdover from times when the future of the species depended on the survivability of women and children. We left that era quite some time ago.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:10 AM
1

Interestingly, the women are upset because many participants are not sexist. They don't make special room for women because they're women. Gaming is a male place, so classically, women want to invade it and force the participants to treat them differently than others.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:07 AM
1

I have to obey the law? Indentured servitude! I have to pay taxes? Indentured servitude! I have to work hard in order to have a nice house and good food? Indentured servitude! While there are similarities, there are marked differences of degrees between forcing you to the front lines and forcing you to obey certain rules at home. The problem with the argument is that it is true and it leads us to question many of the things we have grown up being told. I prefer to say it's morally wrong to force…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 05:10 AM
4

Do you think he needs to include "on average" when he is comparing "women" and "men"? Either way, neither one means that discrimination is taking place. That isn't what "misleading" means. If you frame the discussion and use this factually accurate statement, you could be trying to get others to imply or implying yourself that discrimination is taking place. With included language like "only," I would say that is probably the case here.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:28 PM
2

Why is it no longer fundamentally morally wrong for defensive wars? You are quite literally forcing someone into indentured servitude and asserting the authority to cause their deaths. What in the world gives you the right to force this upon another human being?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:26 PM
0

Um, no actually. Equality is not the most important ends in this discussion. I do not think it's appropriate to enslave more people just to make it equal.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:24 PM
4

Do you think a factually accurate statement can still be misleading? "Women earn 13% less than men on average." In context, do you think this statement could be misleading?
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:19 PM
0

Have fun being a male-flavored feminist still trying to claim the high ground and still losing. People don't give a shit about whiny, pathetic males; they ignore them. Male-flavored feminism will not work.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:13 PM
1

A prison in which I still think it's wrong to tell the guards that someone is holding on to chess pieces because they do something I don't like. Even if "the other side" would report my chess pieces. That's what it means to be principled. This is male flavored feminism and this "movement" is constantly being flooded by those who are desperately trying to turn it into such a thing. I guess the literature didn't take; I'm most certainly a libertarian, but I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist. When gover…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 07:05 AM
3

Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? Yes. It does matter. But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. The woman's choice; the man's obligation.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:54 AM
0

Using government thugs does. And I bet they make the same argument, "you have no hope in hell of helping anyone or not being discriminated against." It's his property. He should be able to do with it whatever he likes as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Going to a particular restaurant is most certainly not a right.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:48 AM
2

I don't want to be a male-flavored feminist. If you're not willing to use the same legal weapons as them, you have no hope in hell of helping anyone or not being discriminated against. I'm not willing to compromise my principles to punish someone for using something which is theirs in a way I don't like, but which doesn't harm anyone not willingly participating.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:42 AM
0

No, it absolutely should not be illegal for owners of a private restaurant to charge some customers more than others for whatever reason they see fit. It's their restaurant and it's their property. What gives you the right to tell them what to do with their property? It doesn't affect you or harm anyone who doesn't voluntarily participate.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:38 AM
1

Yes, use those government guns to punish a restaurant owner for doing with his property what he wants and which doesn't affect anyone who doesn't voluntarily go there to eat food.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:34 AM
0

I just went out to a barbecue restaurant, and had to pay 3 more dollars than the women I was with because ladies pay less at that restaurant All you can eat barbecue perhaps? Would like more details. I'm never going back there. Free market in action.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:32 AM
3

Yes, "personhood" would be a better way to communicate "full" human. I used "'full' human" in an attempt to make the person I was talking to more receptive to my comment.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:04 PM
2

right can be created through contracts between two individuals, but who will enforce the contract Can a right exist even if it cannot be enforced? If your answer is no, then it must be enforced by individuals for it to exist. of course you can say another third party, other than the government, can enforce the contract. Why can it not be enforced by the parties themselves? but the point i'm making is not that the government is the only arbitrator of rights, but that if it were decided that the g…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:06 PM
1

for there to be rights, there needs to be a party that is ready to fulfill the duty of guaranteeing those rights. Even if true, this does not require "government" to be that party. Ex. Individuals. If it doesn't require government, how in the world can rights stem from government? i have already demonstrated that there is no such thing as a complete human being Well, you made an unsupported assertion. I don't think this will convince many who don't already agree with you. The point of my comment…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:20 PM
5

That's fine, but you're not going to convince them with this and as long as they refuse to accept that the fetus is a "full" human and deserves human rights, the discussion about parental obligations goes nowhere. You should start on the premises to your argument instead of moving on to the meat leaving the disputed premises alone. rights come from the government. That is horrid and furthermore it is merely a should argument which they will disagree with anyway. "Should the unborn get rights? No…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:11 PM
7

Their argument: Whatever growing inside the womb is not a "full" human, does not have human rights, and cannot appropriately be described as a "child." Your argument falls apart.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:58 PM
2

True.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:51 PM
0

Insurance: how does it work?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:50 PM
1

Sure, but I don't see the relevance to this topic You don't see the relevance of an average good driver who is a male compared to other average good male drivers in a discussion on insurance? Okay.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:48 PM
-2

When you're not acting like a child, I won't. Cheers kiddo. The Dunning-Kruger Effect strikes again!
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:37 AM
-1

The average of good male drivers? You understand that there are more averages than "the average of all males/humans/females"?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:36 AM
-1

Insurance works on averages slugger. It pools the best it can based on factors it considers relevant to risk and then it averages out the risk among the pool. if you think mens rights is aka. women haters then you need to fuck off and not come back. Apparently some of you are.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:31 AM
-2

I didn't say good male drivers shouldn't pay based on averages. They should pay similarly to other good drivers.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:30 AM
-2

I didn't say you couldn't discriminate on race.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:29 AM
-4

It's moronic and forces better drivers to subsidize poor drivers. But at least women are getting fucked! Yay. That exactly what I wanted all along anyway.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:09 AM
-2

Then you shouldn't. I don't know where in my statement I implied that you should.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:09 AM
-3

What? Men, on average, are more risky drivers than women to insure. It's why insurance companies charge men more. Should you pay for others' risky behavior? I guess that depends on whether or not you are a similarly risky driver. If you are, you should.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:04 AM
0

Insurance: How does it work?! The entire way it functions is with averages.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 12:01 AM
-2

If that's the case, the prices should be the same. between whom? Male drivers, on average, are more risky to insure than female drivers. Males should pay more. You can't make a sound argument that says the system where good male drivers pay more than bad female drivers is fair. Of course I can. If good male drivers are still more risky than bad female drivers, they should pay more.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:36 PM
-6

Good male and female drivers are expected to make up for bad male and female drivers. That's the point of pooling.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:27 PM
-7

It's silly that women are forced to pay for men's more risky behavior.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:16 PM
1

Yep. And even harmful; good luck!
/r/MensRights23/10/12 09:37 PM
1

Why are we talking about Gloria? I was talking about Christopher and his statement. It was sexist and he is a sexist unless his statements are irony/satire.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:25 PM
2

Christopher's implied statement is that men should work and women have the choice to work or to stay at home. They're the "gentler" sex.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:12 PM
1

Not apparently.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:10 PM
3

lawyers are not as productive members of society as engineers/doctors.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 07:10 PM
3

Human life != human rights if you want to use it in that manner. Taking use of language as a substantive case to back your position. What? If "less arbitrary" is what you are going for in relation to self-perpetuation, conception is absolutely not the least arbitrary.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:49 PM
6

What the hell? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with letting women have a choice on what kind of life they want to pursue? Nothing, but it is sexist and it does implicitly value women more than men.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:14 PM
2

I think the point at which you are thrust into this world is less "arbitrary" than conception. And I think the point at which you can care for yourself is less arbitrary than that. Do you agree? Further you must consider that law if governed by 'action' and the removal from the womb would be an 'act' of termination. So what? Law is not governmed only by action, but by inaction as well. The "act" is removal; the termination of that life is a necessary consequence of the act of removal. It would p…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:10 PM
4

I graduated from a T14 law school. Tell me about my jealousy.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:44 AM
3

It cannot self-perpetuate. If it were not in the womb of another, it would die quickly. This is easily demonstrated by the number of dead fertilized cells which fail to attach to the uteran wall.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:43 AM
3

My comment was primarily to note the silliness of the usage of the term "arbitrary," but why is it the least arbitrary in determining what is human life (and the accompanying rights) and what is not?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:45 AM
5

thinking about doing something productive in your life... and you chose law school... fail.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:31 AM
3

male privilege
/r/MensRights22/10/12 10:22 AM
8

Why is labeling a baby a human life at conception not arbitrary (given your usage of the term)?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:37 AM
16

Even if the man is forced to be a father, he isn't allowed to be a father if the mother doesn't want it. He is merely a bank account; he must pay for his children, but is completely uninvolved in anything dealing with the children. Not only can women force you to be a father, they can also prohibit you from actually fathering.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:36 AM
49

I would like to propose that we, as a species, eliminate the word "hubby" from the vernacular in all languages.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:28 AM
0

It's necessary if you are going to make a blanket, generalized statement like that. Why get married? Married men, on average, are happier than unmarried men. With risk comes reward I suppose.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 09:25 AM
0

Do a google search, find some study, and get back to me.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 08:50 AM
1

More shaming language? Wow, this is original.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:23 AM
1

And dressing up in scary costumes is 1) original 2) not stupid?
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:21 AM
2

Or maybe those men who, on average, are the most happy portion of the population and have less stress and good health, then tend to go on to get married That's possible.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:13 AM
3

And by "the government," you mean men in general. And don't be silly, men vote for women as a group much more than men for men. I doubt women's suffrage was necessarily for that to be true.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:38 PM
2

Women don't pay the same amount of tax dollars. They pay significantly less tax dollars at all levels of government and receive significantly more benefits at all levels of government.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:22 PM
4

Financially, you get tax breaks Not always. Actually, not at all unless your incomes prior to marriage are quite disparate. Married men, on average, are the most happy portion of the population. They experience less stress and live healthier, happier lives.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:14 PM
1

complete with hero and nation worship. I'll take with a grain of salt the allegations in this lawsuit desperately trying to capitalize on the sob story of a mangled "war hero." The debt was legitimately owed (hard to find that tidbit after a paragraph about how debt collectors go after illegitimate/fraudulent debts). It's difficult to determine where money in an account came from; the at least implied accusation that the creditor knew all the money was from veteran's benefits (which are not subj…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:09 PM
2

Yes. What's wrong with dressing up as a sexy Sesame Street character? I fully support your choice and desire to dress up and scare people, but perhaps you should give others the same tolerance they are showing you.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 07:03 PM
1

No way, someone came into this dead thread to necro it by downvoting you. That definitely sounds more likely than the theory that I downvoted it.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 03:59 PM
1

lol. Right, that sounds like the more likely scenario. Not that you actually downvoted me and were explaining why, but because you were roleplaying. How much of an idiot are you willing to make yourself look like in order to deny you downvoted me and continued to downvote me? I didn't downvote you; it was some random person that decided to go down this thread, downvote you, and leave my comment alone.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 01:59 PM
1

I don't find that shocking, I find it unlikely given the actual context of the event. you should have been able to grasp that it was a suggestion for a reason why people downvoted you Right. I should have been able to implicitly understand that "I downvoted you... " meant "some people (not me) downvoted you..." You are butthurt enough to do the first few lol. When losing, go straight to shaming language. Derp.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 01:54 PM
1

Unless hitting back is to defend yourself... in which case it is not assault. You will go to jail, but not for something illegal.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 08:05 AM
0

Auto assumption: Woman was victim; young male children are perpetrators. A male teacher would have been arrested, thrown in prison, and fired so quickly he would wonder why his butt hurts.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 12:53 PM
1

I find it likelier that such a person came across this thread that that I downvoted just because we were having a discussion (one where we didn't even disagree vehemently) Yes, they clicked "show all comments" in a thread with few readers, commentors, and voters, and in the few moments between our responses and they downvoted me, left you alone, and escaped (note the time the responses occurred). Or you downvoted more of my comments after you downvoted and admitted you downvoted my original comm…
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:24 PM
1

I don't make that assumption, I make that conclusion based on the fact that within a couple of minutes after I had responded and you had responded to my response my comment was downvoted. Adding to that the issue that your comments didn't have any upvotes (only downvotes to my comment) in a string where the only people seeing them are people who have changed their preferences or clicked "show comments. I'm not certain, but I am comfortable using that evidence to make a conclusion and doling you …
/r/MensRights16/10/12 01:07 PM
1

If you had looked at any of my other responses to other users on the comment, it becomes pretty clear the former was sarcasm. Poe's law strikes again. I'll return your downvotes.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:15 PM
-3

Right when males and whites may prospectively benefit. Big surprise.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 03:07 AM
2

It was sarcasm slugger.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 02:33 AM
2

It was sarcasm slugger. It was meant to counter your silly assertion that you are not being as asshole, but intentionally using abrasive language. And "idiot" isn't reserved on for the unintelligent; it also applies to people, even if genius, who do things which are counterproductive (among other things).
/r/MensRights10/10/12 02:03 AM
1

"You're a fucking idiot." I'm not being an asshole, I'm just stating the truth.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 01:49 AM
1

As I said in the beginning, perhaps you are not an average 13 year old. Thank you for the conversation. Cheers.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:50 PM
1

And so the thing that most teenagers would do is comply with those assholes, and get a irreversible and painful procedure I am saying that the average teenager would: See examples of cultural mutilations across cultures and across history. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm not saying they should do it, I am saying that the question originally posed would be made like that or perceived like that. Which is how it is asked or received in analogous situations.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:41 PM
1

Yes, I am saying that it happens and it has happened.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 09:22 PM
1

I'm not defending Jeremiah. Jeremiah makes anyone who has remotely similar views to him look like a moron: What I will do, however, is give an accurate description of what ACTUALLY occurred to counter your revisionism. Like I said I acknowledged at the time I got off lightly and requested a ban for myself just so people like you wouldn't whine The mods treat people with dissenting positions differently. I don't know if you requested a tougher sanction and I frankly don't really give a shit. It h…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:46 PM
0

He was banned right after that event, you were given a "warning" (AKA - a slap on the wrist). You got a pass. What's the difference? You're an asshole and you go out of your way to be an asshole, he is an asshole and goes out of his way to be an asshole. The difference? You and the mod were friends at the time and the mod agreed with your position.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:41 PM
0

What did you expect the mods to say? "Yes, we ban people with dissenting opinions." they assured me they didn't ban all but the worst trolls. which means "people who have dissenting opinions and say things which are offensive." If you notice, the people which they agree with get a free pass: Just like OThomson.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:37 PM
1

Jeremiah though I don't go out of my way to be an asshole You trolled Jeremiah in that thread to provoke him, but you don't go out of your way to be an asshole. Did you manage to get this out with a straight face?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:36 PM
1

You didn't get nearly banned, you were given a pass for blatantly provoking him with your own personal attacks because you and iggypoo are friends forever. Nothing quite like watching you trying to rewrite history.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:33 PM
0

Noam Chomsky neither thought of this idea or best described it.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:32 PM
0

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:31 PM
1

It's funny because you're trying to get him to admit that both sides are pretty shit and do shitty things, but he thinks "well the other side does it too!" is a counter to that.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:30 PM
-1

but it seems only the right wing are being whiny victimologists about it Derp. You and objective thought are about as likely to go together as oil and water. You are so completely jaded by your biases that it makes any discussion with you on this topic painful. As soon as anyone backs you into a corner, you go with the "I don't give a shit because X, Y, and Z" (which you apparently did in your next comment). Stay class OThomson. There is so much sweet, sweet irony in this comment string written …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:28 PM
1

Because their parents force them to. I am talking about americans though. Their parents don't force them to in many situations, they want to because without it they won't be an adult. So you're telling me that a teenager will be ridiculed by his family for not being circumcised I'm sure it has happened and happens.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 03:20 PM
1

However, my point still stands that no teenager would get circumcised unless it was for medical reasons. Okay, so why do 13 year olds throughout history (and even now) go through cultural rituals to get circumcized or other mutilations? This is patently false. If you describe the pros, cons, and procedure to any teenager, i can assure you that none will want to get circumcised just because. I'm not claiming they do it "just because," I'm claiming they do it because of the social pressure from th…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:52 PM
1

At 13, how often does being circumcised get discussed or even revealed? For me, I saw or heard about it maybe a couple of times until I was 16. Do you think this contributes to the rarity of people being ridiculed, at 13, around you?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:45 PM
-1

Education is not comprised 100% of exciting things we love to do. It doesn't have to. Children outside of tradition, prussian model schooling methods learn things because they are naturally curious and love to be apart of things. This even includes things which are not comprised "100% of exciting things." You are just using manipulative rhetoric to avoid a conversation you don't want to have; you do this by front-loading all of your language. But the fact that a situation is not ideal is not an …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:41 PM
0

So you are suggesting the "corporal punishment" is appropriate (even encouraged) and effective?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:37 PM
0

Guess.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:36 PM
1

So circumcision isn't a common topic of conversation?
/r/MensRights09/10/12 01:33 PM
1

No, i said that if they were being bullied every day, then they might consider it. Being ridiculed every once in a while is not the same. So you agree that 16 years do conform if the alternative is ridicule to some degree? As the costs of conformity rise, I'm sure the ridicule necessary to make them conform will need to rise. "Being bullied every day" is a type of "ridicule." Most people won't care if you are cut or not Is it a common topic of conversation? Do 14 year olds broadcast to the schoo…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:25 PM
1

If they were being bullied every day, then i think some might do it, So you concede that 16 year olds do comform when the alternative is ridicule. I'm sure as the cost of conformity rises, the level of ridicule too will rise. but i have never heard of somebody being ridiculed for not being cut. Whether someone is circumcised or not wasn't really talked about very much. However, in my life,if it became known that someone wasn't circumcised, they were ridiculed. Most people who were uncircumcised …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:13 PM
1

most average 16 year olds want to get circumcised just because I was 16 once. My claim is that most 16 year olds will conform when the alternative is to be ridiculed. Do you think this is a true statement or an untrue statement?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:00 PM
1

maybe
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:56 PM
1

I'm pretty sure he advised therapy because you were in an abusive relationship for 3 years. That being said, I still think it's bullshit. I'm not sure why everyone apparently thinks you are some rabid, angry lunatic because of this OP. Stop treating women like princesses? You must be angry and upset. You need help! To me, you just come off as someone who is tired of the bullshit, but still generally polite (outside of your head) to most people.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:54 PM
1

Do you think the people in /r/teenagers represent the average teenage American?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:52 PM
0

Cynacism is a good thing; it washes away the bullshit from our lives. For me at least, it made me a much happier person.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:51 PM
0

the only way you would convince me to become circumcised is if i was in constant pain, and the only way to stop it was to get cut. Perhaps you are not so average? Also: Do you admit that the vast majority of men in the USA are circumcised? Funnily enough, your comment would be closer to true if you actually just meant "American" (including men and women).
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:44 PM
0

So you would want to be circumcised because everybody else is doing it If I was an average 16 year old? Probably. If it was the cool thing to cut off your left ear, would you go with the flow? Most would. See all cultural mutilations since the beginning of human history. even though only 50% of Americans are cut Um, no. ~80% of males in the United States are circumcised. The point of my comment was to point out how the question would be asked or perceived by a 16 year old in a society where most…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:35 PM
2

I'm sorry i didn't take your insane comment seriously and analyzed every word. "Your comment is insane because of the words, but I'm not going to analyze the words because your comment is insane." Any other gems you wanted to get out?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:12 PM
2

These are all neonatal circumcision and that might be what you guys do in the US but i think its pretty uncommon otherwise. This is primarily an American Forum and subForum. Of course there are scientific evidence in the articles but it is about nociception from vacinations and things that "may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behaviour" You glanced over a few of them. And apparently can generalize to all of them. The few you did look at briefly do support the assertion that neonatal c…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:42 PM
2

The link has a list at the bottom, most of which have good source material. That list is relevant and helpful. I'm not going to go through 25 articles to prove my point. You didn't prove anything. You noted some weaknesses in some of the articles you presented, that doesn't negate them or negate their assertions. They all provide good evidence that circumcision does permanently alter brain function (for the worse). I'm on my last year for bachelor's degree, now get the fuck off my lawn. What do …
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:11 PM
1

Legal force can end the practice, or at least make it punishable, but it will not end the mindset that leads to it. You're not changing the mindset; the people who once held that mindset into the point at which they have children and break out of it is such an infinitesimally small number. I think it would be more wise to cut through the bullshit and expose them for who they are to everyone else than to cater to the lunacy on the off chance they might one day, maybe, sort of think God doesn't wa…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:43 PM
2

The philosophy which asserts that oneself is the property of a "deity" is abominable. I have little faith in someone who has such beliefs or in others who think they can manipulate that powder keg.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 01:31 PM
3

"I didn't look at the bottom of the article or I am severely lacking in reading comprehension skills." i'm just a biomedicin student Oh joy, a freshman bio student who thinks he knows everything.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:50 PM
0

whoosh
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:36 PM
2

Despite what you think, most teachers want to help their students to be successful in life. Where did I claim otherwise? Just because I am critical of you and your profession doesn't imply that I don't think you have good intentions. This is just a common tactic used to avert the discussion to something you want to talk about, " but I really, really care about the children." While a good education does not guarantee success, it is a significant contributing factor. It probably has more to do wit…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:34 PM
3

If the realization that it's his body, his choice doesn't stop them, I'm unsure what will.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:25 PM
1

Subtle sarcasm.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:24 PM
2

It's sarcasm.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:23 PM
0

It's sarcasm.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:21 PM
3

Did you look at the bottom of the article slugger?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:21 PM
0

It's the next comment I made...
/r/MensRights07/10/12 09:25 PM
7

Why is this being downvoted? This has actually been proven with scientific studies. Do we downvote truths we find uncomfortable?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:51 PM
5

Modern "schooling" rewards things which are generally female characteristics. They punish things which are generally male characteristics.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:46 PM
6

IF she is prepared and authorized to use a more traditional method of discipline meaning what?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:45 PM
5

Boys lack motivation to be the best that they can be. Maybe they just don't give a shit about your approval or your threats? The reason, we knew there would be hell to pay if we did not. Is this how you think "education" should be accomplished? With threats of beatings? I honestly belief that boys would be best served in boys schools with male teachers Better served in what? Life should be about passing meaningless tasks to learn meaningless garbage so some random group of adults can pass judgme…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:44 PM
4

The correct answer to "why on earth would I waste my time with this" is "because my parents will land on me like a ton of bricks if I don't do what my teachers require to bring home As." and so is the nature of "schooling." Do it or else. That sounds like a great learning environment. It's not the learning that is apparently important, it is the process that is important... hence calling it "schooling" as opposed to "education."
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:42 PM
5

That is an excellent argument and I am sure it will be appreciated when the male comes of age to make the decision whether or not he wishes to have parts of his penis cut off. We're talking about infant circumcision.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:19 PM
0

That is the question which would be posed to the 16 year old or at least how the sixteen year old would perceive it. This is how the "debate" is framed in most typical conversations on the topic. "Well, I want my son to look like me and I don't want him to be made fun of."
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:59 PM
7

It's intended to make the message "his body, his choice." It does that wonderfully. It cuts away the bullshit. "The people doing the circumcision are doing it because God told them" is not a "nuance" of this message.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:53 PM
7

So what? Memes in general and this meme is not intended to be a complete communication of all possible views on the practice, purpose for doing, and affects of the circumcision of infant males.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:51 PM
9

Meh, I don't think the reasons people decide to cut pieces of their male children's genitals off is really relevant to the message "his body, his choice."
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:38 PM
7

Take a read. There is a link to the actual material on the bottom of the post. I mean, the media sort of never covered the other side of the story so I always sort of assumed it was for the better You're right, they don't. Many of us here had the same or similar opinion before we really thought about it and were introduced to the other side of the story. "Well, I want to get it done anyway" is an attempt to provide yourself agency in a decision in which you had none. For males, this is very dish…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:34 PM
21

Why is that remotely relevant to the "his body, his choice" motif of the meme? Besides, if you notice... they're holding what would appear to be bibles.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:32 PM
9

You mean like VAWA?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:27 PM
-18

Do you want to look like everyone else or do you want to be ridiculed and made fun of? edit: Anyone who is downvoting want to bother to respond and tell me why they are downvoting?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:26 PM
10

The scientific evidence is that your brain chemistry was permanently affected when you were circumstanced. If this is true, would this change your opinion?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:25 PM
11

Unfortunately, they sometimes lose the nuances along the way. What nuances were lost here?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 07:25 PM
1

It is alive Fetuses are "alive." The problem is the child IS born if we are considering financial obligations for the man. The male makes the choice before the child is born. If this were the case, would you object? And even if his/her mom didn't give a fuck about the financial hardships he or she should face, is a horrid person, that doesn't mean the child that is now alive deserves that hardship So the mother cannot give up a baby for adoption? Let's not pretend like this scenario occurs outsi…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 01:31 AM
1

my problem with the idea of financial abortion is that the child now exists, and is at a disadvantage because one of the people who accidentally created it won't financially contribute. I'm sure the mother will take that into account when deciding whether or not she wants to have the child and can support it while it is merely a fetus. Furthermore, women have the choice to not contribute even after birth. Men do not. What happens when a woman gives up a baby for adoption? Do they search for the …
/r/MensRights07/10/12 01:27 AM
0

till true in some parts of the world What? The societies which heavily repress and victimize women usually heavily repress and victimize men in equal (if not larger) amounts.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 01:21 AM
2

hat is because I can't see giving the guy a say in what happens to the child (keep it or get rid of it) Biology tends to get in the way of "equality" sometimes. Men having the decision over whether to turn women into brood mothers for their children is abominable, but I don't think anyone is really pushing that. If the male is powerless to stop the birth of a child and responsible in either case, the male should be given the choice of whether or not to support the child. If he has no choice, why…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 01:15 AM
1

Sexism exists against both men and women and has for all of history. There was and is tremendous social pressure against women and men for them to comply with their roles throughout history. Do you think that feminism and men's rights are compatible? (reddit.com) Sure, it's called "individual rights," but only includes negative (and not positive) rights. Rights must be universalizable or they're not rights. "Egalitarian gender equality" meaning what exactly?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 01:02 AM
4

Man: "I bet he wants to take a look." Woman: "How much money does he have?"
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:25 AM
6

It didn't stop them before and it won't stop them again.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:21 AM
1

In other news, women will now be forced to subsidize the poor decisions/increased costs of males. I guess we're both slaves to each other.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 12:18 AM
0

You continuously repeat things until they become the norm and the topic of conversation. It's a cheap rhetorical tactic I have been pointing out the whole conversation. If you do this again, I will end the discussion. You did it again. Cheers kiddo.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 03:16 AM
1

Cheers kiddo. When you grow a rational argument come get me. I'm done with your inane responses, mischaracterizations, lack of reading comprehension, and fallacious argument.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 03:12 AM
1

Its not a logical fallacy. Creating a silly, uncommon definition after you have already asserted something silly in order to avoid errors in your argument. This is known as a "tautology." Who is a "real" victim? A person with PTSD obviously who already understands their culpability and blames themselves. Derp. These people would be harmed by being badgered by others reminding them of their culpability. Derp. Therefore any suggestion that many victims are partly to blame for their victimization i…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 03:07 AM
0

So the "real" victims are defined as anyone you think 1) already understands how their conduct contributed to their victimization; 2) blame themselves for it; and 3) would be harmed from being told something they already know. Well, congrats you have defined yourself into an argument. Yet another logical fallacy. What a silly definition of "victim." you feel that its important to remind these people about how they are culpable. Not if they already know and understand, no I don't and I never said…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 03:01 AM
1

You don't "give" agency back by telling someone they are partly responsible for what happened to them; you just don't rob them of agency by pretending they are merely playthings in the world and of their victimizers. You can "give" someone back their agency by reminding them that they have the power to stop it from happening again (or lessen their chances).
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:53 AM
0

How do you determine who are the "real" victims?
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:51 AM
1

Oh, so they're not "real" victims, eh? How do you determine who are the "real" victims?
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:41 AM
1

If you remove their agency by refusing to acknowledge that many people are partly to blame for their victimization, you are turning them into objects. To bring up my original comment again, it is this desire to be an agent which most men have and the reason why they "blame the victim." They do this to men and women.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:39 AM
1

You're the make version of the feminists and white knights and other blue pill people that think when a woman abuses a man, he must be responsible for it. because I want to blame men when they do things unreasonable that but for their conduct wouldn't have happened and do the same thing to women I am a "make version" of feminists who do X. You're a complete moron. >But who cares about acting unreasonably afterall, they're the victim! Fuck anything that moves, don't use a condum, don't use birth …
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:33 AM
1

they start to look for things the man must have done to be culpable. Sometimes there are things the man must have done which makes him partly culpable for his victimization. Stop trying to turn people into objects.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:31 AM
1

Ok, so why are do we not see people making sure that people that have PTSD from other violence and various injuries from accidents and what not, how they were culpable and how they should have stayed at home that day and what not We do. Is it because that would have be unreasonable and unnecessarily cruel No. You are like the feminists that say "should have kept it in your pants" to the people that get fucked on pregnancy fraud. I'm like the people who tell men that they shouldn't have unprotect…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:28 AM
1

men are raped too.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:22 AM
1

Do you feel that its important for people that have been traumatized from traffic accidents how they are culpable? I think it's important to understand what you did which was unreasonable so you don't do it again (among many other reasons). It is what is done in a court of law and it is what should be done. This dialogue has been mundane for quite a few comments. Unless you respond with something which is, at least, interesting (I won't hold my breath it will be something resembling rational dis…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:17 AM
0

What hinders the healing process is turning them into playthings for their victimizers. Taking control of their own agency helps many victims; understanding they they have the power to stop it from happening again helps many victims. You're silly, emotional, and irrational. I'm not carrying on two strings where you repeat the same thing. Cheers.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:14 AM
1

Because they already blame themselves for their culpable conduct? No, I doubt they do. They have idiots like you desperately trying to turn them into objects.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:09 AM
1

Well its blaming rape victims for their own rapes I didn't claim it wasn't and the fact you think waving a flag that reads "your victim-blaming" is actually an answer to my question is rather telling. It's irrational. You have answered my original question, thanks! which is a horrible thing to do to people. They might actually have to accept that they are partly the reason why they were victimized! They might have to be treated as actual people instead of mere playthings for their victimizers. T…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:05 AM
1

If they were asking for it like walking home near a road? There are degrees of conduct. We like to describe these things as "unreasonable" or "reasonable." If someone is acting "unreasonable" then telling them about things they can do to act more reasonable would reduce the likelihood of them being victims in the future. Is that if they were asking for it? Same answer.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 02:02 AM
1

Yes, it doesn't... and so what?
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:58 AM
1

Do you respond to drink driving PSAs by saying the victims of drink drivers need to examine their conduct If their conduct was unreasonable and made them more likely to be the victims of drunk drivers, then yes. Do you respond to prison rape stats by saying that the rape victims need to examine their own conduct? Same answer.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:56 AM
1

I'm not blaming the people that are injured by air crashes and drunk drivers though, they just need to take responsibility for their conduct. Where, exactly, did I claim I wasn't partly "blaming the victim"? My original comment implied I was partly "blaming the victim," when I expressly asserted that it doesn't remove any culpability on the person who was the victimizer. Go ahead and point to the part where I claimed I wasn't partly blaiming the victim if they had put themselves at risk. Don't w…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:53 AM
1

I should know that people are raped because they failed to follow life limiting rules on the off chance they lead to rape, same goes for prison rape, and being run over by malfunctioning drivers. Some of them are. Some of them aren't. It's telling that you think if you present someone who did follow perfect prevention tactics and was still victimized you have somehow disproved the assertion that rape prevention tactics would reduce the likelihood someone was or will be raped for people who did n…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:48 AM
0

teaching me about how rape victims are victims because they failed to follow rules. "I haven't been reading what you have been writing and respond with silly emotional nonsense because I don't want to actually respond." Im glad I know all this victim blaming stuff is bs now. "I am a victim and therefore my conduct is unquestionable." Nothing quite like having your agency being robbed by silly, irrational do-gooders like yourself.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:46 AM
1

Your entire comment is an emotional appeal because you don't want the truth to be true and therefore you will scream you are offended to stop people from telling you the truth. That is silly and it is irrational and you are a silly, irrational moron. Congrats!
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:42 AM
1

What about the conduct of the 1 in 6 male and 1 in 4 female children that are raped or sexually assaulted, and everyone who was raped while following your rules that you call into question Rape prevention != rape elimination. Sometimes people do make the right choices (from their perspective) and are still victimized. It means they couldn't have done anything to reduce the chances they were raped or victimized. And sometimes they don't follow those rules and therefore following the rules would r…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:39 AM
1

"I am a victim and therefore my conduct is unquestionable." I am not a traditional conservative, but I think I would prefer that label to being an irrational moron.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:25 AM
1

Yes, that was exactly what I said. I said the pedestrian is fully to blame for walking in the middle of a street and therefore fully to blame when they are hit by a car. Thank you for the dialogue; I hope others enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed typing it out. Cheers.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:22 AM
1

go back to my original comment and read it again. but you aren't really aware of what you are saying or its implications. I know exactly what I am saying and I am becoming more and more aware that reason and logic do not matter as much as emotion and feelings. The answer to my question: "people will have their feelings hurt because they're irrational and cannot read very well and will respond in a way that might hurt your feelings so don't complain when they're being irrational and continue to b…
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:18 AM
1

"You are but what am I!" Yeah, that's about the level of cognition I have come to expect from you. Do you lecture pedestrians that have been run over about how walking on paths increases their risk of being run over by a car I usually tell them they shouldn't be walking in the middle of the street when they get hit while walking in the middle of the street. This isn't a binary slugger. You're being irrational. "Irrational" meaning "logical and true but it hurts my feelings so it's bad." derp
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:13 AM
1

You have confused yourself. Wasn't the first time and won't be the last time you confuse yourself. Go back to my original comment and read it again. Words: They have meanings.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:09 AM
1

Meanwhile even though people a following your advise, rape is still happening. "rape prevention" != "rape elimination." And don't complain when they reverse the situation and publish lists of ways for you to avoid raping. I don't really give a shit. Irrational people will be irrational.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:08 AM
1

How many rapes happen because people don't know that risk of crime is elevated in high crime areas? I guess you go ahead and concede that your "analogy" which means "equivalent" is flawed in two respects. It's no where close to equal (which is apparently what you think analogy means) and it's a false substitution. Here, you slight your hand and reveal you understand it doesn't mean equal, you were just desperately trying to save face. This is your strawwomen that don't know higher risk of crime …
/r/MensRights06/10/12 12:16 AM
1

The original 1 in 4 (problematic study) showed that all but 15% of rapists were known to the person that was allegedly raped. which is 15x 1%. How many accidents do you think happen because people turn the wrong way down highways? So you are advising women to never go to an area with a elevated crime rate because rape I am advising women that there is an increased likelihood of rape and other crimes if they go to an area with elevated crime. No, my answer is arm chair experts shouldn't give out …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 06:28 PM
1

We have gone from "1%" to "the overwhelming majority." Do you have evidence to support this or did you just make this up too? Third time's the charm. Although you failure to answer pretty much concedes the point anyway. Its advice for a straw person that thinks its an good idea to go to high crime areas to hang out. But they still do it. Which brings us to the gist of your comment: Telling people not to abuse alcohol is a b/s prevention tip too, if telling people not to abuse substances worked t…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 06:07 PM
1

Here is the important bit for anyone following along. It took quite some time to get Sigil to actually make a substantive comment. Tl;dr: Sigil1 admits that rape prevention tips do decrease the likelihood that someone will be raped. He tries to coral the conversation into one prevention tip and pretend it encompasses them all and he refuses to discuss the other ones which are more applicable to more situations. Also: Sigil1 thinks analogy and equivalent are synonyms and have the exact same meani…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:50 PM
1

I'm trying to explain but you don't want to know I understand your answer: People are irrational. It was smart to avoid the important parts of my comment: Prevention advice doesn't only include walking in a bad part of town. I allowed you to corral the conversation in an attempt to get you to admit that some prevention advice was logical and applicable. You already did that. There are many others you have not addressed. For instance: "Don't get out of your mind drunk." Do these prevention tips, …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:45 PM
1

We have gone from "1%" to "the overwhelming majority." Do you have evidence to support this or did you just make this up too? Then why do you think its good, logical rape prevention advice to advise people not to decide to travel to a high crime area as if they don't already know that high crime areas are dangerous? Rape prevention advice is not entirely represented by this one solitary example we have been beating dead as I have forced you to concede that it is logical and applicable in some ci…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:43 PM
1

That's what I thought. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't make shit up in order to try and support your bad argument. We have gone from "1%" to "the overwhelming majority." Do you have evidence to support this or did you just make this up too? Suggesting that people are getting raped because they don't understand that simple principle I never suggested that; you are arguing against a phantom and a strawman. You are being irrational and silly.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:27 PM
1

Its good advice in the same way that "if you wan't to avoid being injured in a car accident, don't drive down the wrong side of the highway" is. Logical and applicable in some circumstances? I know; I already stated that. Thank you for conceding this even though you have desperately attempted to belittle the point by trying to conflate and substitute different concepts. I repeatedly called you out on it and you just ignored it. That's fine, I'm having this discussion for others. And I'm sure tho…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:25 PM
1

is 1% of the rapes Can you support this assertion?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:59 PM
1

Yeah I think that violent stranger rape, is 1% of the rapes and most of them are family members, friends, dates and acquaintances. You missed this part: You understand that being in a bad part of town doesn't necessarily imply the rape will by a stranger? This is another jump you make and try to substitute it for the argument. It's a rather common fallacy or rhetorical tactic, but it doesn't really have a place in rational discussion. . its redundant shows a very uninformed understanding of the …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:55 PM
1

To offer it as rape prevention advice is a bit like saying Do you have evidence to support this continued assertion that rape by "strangers" is very very rare in comparison to rape by people more familiar? You understand that being in a bad part of town doesn't necessarily imply the rape will by a stranger? This is another jump you make and try to substitute it for the argument. It's a rather common fallacy or rhetorical tactic, but it doesn't really have a place in rational discussion. it seems…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:20 PM
1

general rape prevention You added "general." This supports your next jump: it implies that in general rapes happen because of foolhardy behaviour on the part of the victim. This is a jump you are making. So your answer is that because people make implications (actually implied or not) to support jumps that make my original basic assertion into something entirely different it is foolish to make the original basic assertion *whether logical valid (read correct) or not? edit*
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:56 PM
1

You waited this long to write a substantive response? Sorry if I offended you. Insults tend to do that. was being short with people that make the logical error that because a woman is attracting all the male and white knight attention in the room due to their attire it increases the chance of them being targeted by a rapist, when in reality the opposite is more likely true. I didn't make that assertion. There are morons in every movement, but it's unfair to paint my question with their idiocy. I…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:27 PM
1

You mischaracterized my answer because you don't understand words, got offended from your mischaracterization, leveled insults throughout your response, and are upset I don't defend the mischaracterization while also asserting the difference between analogies and equivalencies is "hair splitting." You're just a moron. You can have the last word; make sure to fill it with silly nonsense (I'm sure you won't have trouble).
/r/MensRights05/10/12 01:04 PM
2

Sorry, I cannot converse with someone who doesn't understand words. Cheers.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:57 PM
1

Well, that ends our discussion. You, apparently, don't understand word and, apparently, think analogous and equivalent are the same thing. Thank you for making yourself look like a complete moron. I like it when people who I disagree with make themselves look like morons.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:37 PM
1

Well do I not understand or am I being willfully dishonest you hair splitting fraud? The distinction between analogous and equivalent is "hair splitting"? That is why when someone says analogous, you can change the word with "equal to" or "equivalent" or "exactly the same as" and not change the meaning of the sentence. Are you typing this out with a straight face? Or are you just an idiot? There is mud covering your entire face.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:35 PM
1

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10tyd3/the_problem_is_with_male_genitalia/c6hzjn2
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:29 PM
1

is a charge that equivalent cannot be used as a synonymy analogous and to do so, is "proof" of my being deliberately manipulative and willfully dishonest. "I don't understand what a parallel synonym is and cannot cite the definition because it doesn't support my failed assertion that "analogous" means "equivalent." Analogous means similar in some respect; you know that, I know that, you are just desperately trying to save face.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:29 PM
1

Sarcasm.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:19 AM
1

Definitions are found in dictionaries. Not thesauruses. More manipulative bullshit to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. Also: What do you think "parallel Synonym" means? You're digging yourself into a bigger hole.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:16 AM
1

Definitions are found in dictionaries. Not thesauruses. More manipulative bullshit to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. Also: What do you think "parallel Synonym" means? You're digging yourself into a bigger hole.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:16 AM
0

Ok, I wanted to try to explain to you, what you don't understand about their arguments and the problems with arm chair expert prevention tips, and analogies with people that are literally asking for it and the PTSD issue. You don't what to know. That's fine. This is incoherent. I understand their argument, I just think it is irrational and illogical. Go back and try again. It was smart for you to drop the "grow up" statements given your comment history in this thread; you're like a kid yelling a…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:30 AM
1

The substantive issue is people giving out rape tips and equating rape victims with people that are literally asking for with out realizing it in with various analogies. Then they are confused when they are accused of "blaming the victim". 1) They're not. Again analogous is not equating. 2) Not my comment. 3) People misunderstand words and it's the speakers fault. 4) "I'm offended" is not actually a legitimate response. You want to split hairs now, because the grown up option isn't a fit for you…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:27 AM
0

How many times do you edit a post within the first 3 minutes. I have now seen 4 different versions of this comment. The added portion: the more grown up option isn't a good fit for you for what ever reason. The "more grown up option" being yelling that I am offended, calling you stupid, and grossly misunderstand an important concept (analogies) in dialogue while desperately avoiding actually responding to the comment I actually wrote? Is that you irony? You might as well come out now Irony, you'…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:09 AM
0

Well, you are back pedaling and trying to manipulate the conversation instead of actually discussing the substantive issue. You have been doing this since your first response. "Well, I'm offended and you're stupid. Those situations are not equal!" You win, let's talk about your manipulative tactics. You are just making accusations and trying to character assassinate. I'm not "trying to character assassinate" by pointing out that you are mischaracterizing my comment and assertion in order to dism…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 12:05 AM
1

I see what you did there! you have now tried to conflate analogous and equating in an attempt to cover up your error! Don't trip over yourself as you back pedal. Of course it has to have "analogous" situations to be "analogous." When your manipulative tactic is removed, your statement is just about as meaningful as "X is X." Do you think you can walk away and still save face yet?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:57 PM
1

which does not equate hence the assertion that I (or "those arm chair experts) are equating the two scenarios demonstrates a misunderstanding of what an "analogy" is and how it is used. Don't trip over yourself as you back pedal.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:43 PM
1

Well, you think an analogy is "equating" the two things being compared so I'm going to go with a "no, you don't." But at least we are talking about how offended you are at the comment you mischaracterized to make offensive.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:32 PM
-1

If arm chair So now that you cannot actually respond to my comment, you have morphed this into a dialogue about "those" armchair experts. I'm not those arm chair experts and neither was my comment. Please, read my comments before responding. I'll return the downvotes.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:37 PM
0

hence "analogy." Are you new to analogies? You understand that when people make analogies, they're actually knock claiming the two things they are comparing are equivalent. That is the entire reason the word and the concept "analogy" exist.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 03:36 PM
-1

Its not that they want to be treated differently, they are asking arm chair experts to stop framing rape in the way arm chair experts are framing it. They're not framing it that way. You are reading what they are writing/saying and the mischaracterizing it so you can get upset. Its not that they want to be treated differently It doesn't really matter if you want to be treated differently, the affect of your mischaracterizations and screaming offense is that you are treated differently. Why? Beca…
/r/MensRights04/10/12 12:34 PM
-1

You're mischaracterizing their statement (and mine). Is it really so hard to comprehend basic English and simply respond to it? Or is the simple English version not bad enough to dismiss for a good enough reason so you have to do it out of hand?
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:09 AM
2

It's not meant to be a complete solution or response to any and all possible problems. That's silly and counterproductive and doesn't address the problem in a way that's livable Because reducing the risk of harm to yourself is silly and counterproductive. Stop for a moment and actually think about your responses.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:11 AM
0

Are people still entertaining the assertion that by men saying people should reduce their risk they are removing all culpability from the wrongdoer? It's how men think as a group, we suggest things individuals can change (walking home at night alone in a bad neighborhood) instead of what they cannot change (the rapists/thieves exist). It has nothing to do with women, men will say this exact thing to other men who get their cars stolen, mugged, etc. Why do you want to be treated differently?
/r/MensRights03/10/12 05:35 AM
0

You should have refused to sign the paper until you could read it and understand what was happening, but hindsight is 20/20 and I'm glad it was a learning experience. I hope some of my advice helps you.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 04:03 AM
0

Please have the lawyer walk you through what is going to happen; I hate to say it, but I think your other lawyer was just a terrible advocate. I apologize on behalf of the profession if that was the case. You have to remember though, that she may have been right. That might have been the best deal you were going to get. I'm not a family law attorney although learning of the constant abuses of men in the system has made me want to get involved. Unfortunately, the only real knowledge about family …
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:58 AM
1

still not sure about bringing one into court though, time will tell If you want to argue your case, I would tell the lawyer that and have her come with you to help you in case you need it. I would advise against it, but it's your case and you can do what you want. if i remember right, she did charge the whole amount. Yeah, a lot of lawyers do stupid shit like that. I would negotiation the retainer to as small an amount of as possible. They tend to always spend the entire retainer. I have seen ma…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:51 AM
1

I wouldn't enter into an agreement with a lawyer without spelling out what you expect from that lawyer. It sounds like you were simply taken advantage of. I would get a lawyer and I would explain in the first meeting what you expect from the representation and whether or not those expectations are reasonable. In the first case, was part of your retainer returned or did she charge you an entire amount?
/r/MensRights01/10/12 03:17 AM
1

If ever there was a reason for nihilism reason didn't get you there?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:49 AM
1

well... some judges.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:46 AM
1

We really need to insist that supposed experts stop spreading distortions about what studies really mean when they say 5-7 percent of all claims are false. Or we could remove the various restrictions on defense attorneys in dealing with accusations of sexual assault or misconduct. Unfortunately, that has been going the wrong way for a while now. Unsurprisingly, more and more men are convicted of rape (whether they raped or not). The vast majority of claims are unknowns. shitty defense attorneys …
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:45 AM
1

The accusation is evidence... it's witness testimony.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 04:44 AM
1

tl;dr: sucks when the shoe is on the other foot. Now that these things are increasingly harming women too, maybe we can expect some real change.
/r/MensRights28/09/12 04:59 AM
1

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:04 AM
1

-715 comment karma.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:01 AM
2

Okay. There are types of male genital mutilation which are comparable to type III female genital mutilation. What, exactly, do you think this shows? There are types which are comparable; claiming they're not because one particular type (very rare) isn't comparable is disingenuous and the refusal to at least discuss this dishonesty is intellectual cowardice.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 09:59 AM
1

Okay. I'm glad you have evidence to hand to males to decide if they want to be circumcised when they come of age. I'm unsure why this is being used as support to chop off bits of babies' genitals without any consent or even input whatsoever.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 09:55 AM
1

Right, but it still requires you to punish, harm, or take from those who have no culpability. The issue here is that feminists respond to this argument by transferring culpability for past offenses of past people onto present people for present circumstance.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:56 AM
1

because then he cannot be criticized; most people base their identities off their beliefs. Criticism of beliefs feels strangely similar to criticisms of person. Because of this, the "devil's advocate" generally refuses to put forth what they think because it means they are never being attacked and can distance themselves.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:53 AM
1

Only men can rape, so men are rapists and women are merely sexual assaulters (Rape has much higher punishments).
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:41 AM
1

TIL men are generally better off than women (that's not true actually). Men are worse off than women. The person is confusing racism and oppression. They're not the same thing. They are redifining "racism" (discrimination based on race) and "sexism" (discrimination based on sex) in order to both arguments (gender discrimination and privilege/oppression) while only presenting one. In fact, her comment itself (broad generalizations and collectivization based on gender discrimination) is sexist and…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:30 AM
1

"If she divorced someone by choice that means she doesn't take her vowels seriously and therefore don't trust anything she says." ... what? Good advice gets lost in a sea of stupid.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:12 AM
2

we agreed that it is likely around two cents on the dollar (in the US). So insignificant when you take into account the various liberties studies tend to take when measuring these things. Hint: risky decisions pay off more than non-risky decisions. I find it rather odd that a $.02 difference when accounting for some of the numerous variables in this sort of measurement is automatically assumed to be because of discrimination and not a bunch of other variables which weren't measured by combine to…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 07:56 AM
2

No no no, you don't understand. All those companies, whether run by men or women, care more about sexism and their dislike of women, than they do for $.30 on the dollar... because the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 07:55 AM
0

I'll be honest; I wouldn't have a problem with this no matter what the genders were in this circumstances. A young fan cutely asked an older celebrity to be their first kiss. I can see how this would cause an uproar if the genders were switched.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:13 AM
-1

I have an eidetic memory and all these studies I read get absorbed and filed away and I remember all the general abstract stuff and paraphrase it back. But I never remember the source. In other words, you have a beyond reproachable pool of evidence which you usually do not back up because you use this response instead of linking the actual evidence or studies. Convenient, eh?
/r/MensRights25/09/12 07:21 AM
1

Still doesn't support that libertarianism supports racism. If you are trying to claim that some libertarians are racist; I will gladly admit that... just like some "insert nearly any label here" are racists. This part to a whole nonsense is, yet another, fallacy you have committed.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 10:12 PM
6

Society (and children) will lose out as men realize the social role they have been expected to follow for the last few millennia is all accountability/responsibility and no benefit. It will be a shock as more and more men are rejecting that role and the productive surplus those men have provided for tens of thousands of years shrinks to nothing and the result is large-scale social collapse. Have you seen all the debt most modern social democracies are facing? What happens when they don't have pr…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 11:23 PM
1

Irony.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:51 PM
1

They don't actually support the assertion that libertarians support racism.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 08:45 PM
1

There are rampant violations all over the world! I've heard bathrooms discriminate based on sex! Those monsters.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:51 PM
1

Property rights are human rights and libertarians value property rights enough to oppose aggression against property (which is necessarily aggression against person) in order to stop racial discrimination with violence. Just like the oppose state aggression against person to stop them from racially disciminating. It's not that libertarians do not care about racial discrimination, it's that the disagree on how to best solve the problem and reject violence as the answer. Do you think outlawing rac…
/r/MensRights20/09/12 05:12 PM
1

>Saying that we are makes you look stupid and makes all MRA look stupid. Irony? Is that you?
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:38 AM
1

You're not interested in a discussion; you're interested in a spitting contest. Don’t wrestle with pigs; you’ll get all muddy and the pigs will love it.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:24 AM
1

You are the person painting all libertarians with a right-wing brush which I pointed out. I really don't care to read your continued attempts to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. There are left-wing libertarians; they actually are the majority of the movement world-wide. Cheers.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:03 AM
1

Nice try troll. Accuse me of trolling. Way to throw off the scent.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 06:01 AM
1

You think that the government - federal, state, and local - should be compelled to protect the interests of bigots, even if this means violently attacking nonviolent protesters. Yes; that's exactly what I said actually.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:51 PM
1

I can blame you for your ignorance and false generalization. There are many leftist libertarians and I am friends with quite a few of them. They wouldn't be too happy that you get paint on them with that wide brush you are using.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:42 PM
1

Saying that we are makes you look stupid and makes all MRA look stupid Saying we're not second class citizens makes you look stupid and all the people like you look stupid. Well thought-out, articulate argument.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:37 PM
1

Oh I sure do endorse some discrimination; I do oppose racial discrimination... which was the topic. So you either made some silly inane comment to point out that all humans "discriminate," or you're wrong.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:36 PM
1

Only defensive force. Well, you make a claim. What do you call the claim on land and the threats of violence to establish it? There is nobody to kick out and take it from You're stopping anyone else from using it.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:34 PM
2

I oppose discrimination and I oppose the state using force to stop discrimination. Congrats, you just met one!
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:16 PM
0

and "society" (read as the State) that made me shudder. mainly I find the capitalist convention of property most just because it doesn't require violence to make happen, like the communist property system would by necessity. You don't think property rights must be enforced through violence? Or at least threats of violence? If Society decides what resources go toward, then everything is political and I will need to lobby neighbors to get enough support to have the State use violence to accomplish…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:15 PM
1

I'm guessing they'd probably object to their label, but you don't want to have a discussion; you just don't want to be wrong. Cheers.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:13 PM
1

I'm not using the term "Libertarian" the party, I am using the term "libertarian" to refer to the philosophy. There is a term for people who want a minimal state and that term is known as "minarchist."
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:07 PM
1

Someone tell all those leftist libertarians that they are not libertarian. And make sure to go back in history and erase the primarily left-wing roots of libertarianism for the vast majority of the time the word has existed. Your ignorance... it's showing.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:04 PM
1

Um, not all of us. He's just trying to write you off, don't bother following that troll down the rabbit hole.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:02 PM
3

This is not exactly right. Both anarchists and minarchists call themselves libertaraians. Libertarian is "Right wing" Someone tell all the left-wing libertarians that they're not libertarian.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:02 PM
0

Interesting observation. You seem pretty set in your ways. What makes you different? Because you really know what's going on? You're just smarter than "these libertarian types"?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 04:00 PM
4

A libertarian by definition opposes discrimination because libertarians oppose the state. No. A libertarian by definition opposes discrimination because it requires that you collectivize people in groups and make judgement of each of them based on the groups. Libertarians do oppose the state and especially so when it commits acts against individuals based on group descriptions. The rest of the article is a straw man such as trying to assert that libertarians think the only power which acts is st…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:46 PM
0

Socialists disagree on what property is "your property." You have different theories of property. When you claim "defending property is legitimate," you must also claim that socialists defending their property (what they see as their property) is legitimate.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 03:32 PM
5

So your claim is that because some, few men are in positions of power, men in general are not second class citizens?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 11:41 AM
3

Are you sure it was a credible threat or she was just blowing steam? Are you willing to escalate this if it was just blowing steam?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 11:38 AM
2

She dismissed that with a wave of her hand and moved on to something else. A slight of hand which reveals she doesn't actually care about the evidence anyway. Did you point out to her that she is further reinforcing your point by not only threatening to have other boys beat you up, but that other boys are willing to beat you up over this? A bit ironic, but I'm unsurprised.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 11:34 AM
2

I broke up with her when I found out she was fucking her boss. Which proves you were always right to insist on always getting a paternity test.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 10:36 AM
3

Because the citizenry is giving it to the state Does the abused give the right to abuse to the abuser? You constantly refer to "the citizenry" in broad, generalized terms; it's pretty clear that all of the citizenry do not want this. Why does the citizenry want the state to regulate them indoctrination of children through mandatory, public, compulsory education. What we're seeing is the state taking over the role of daddy. the state caused this. They state removed the responsibility of individua…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 09:30 AM
3

Socialism can come through voluntary means, but the most feasible path is through democracy democracy isn't voluntary. revolution. neither is revolution in every example I can think of.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 09:26 AM
0

You need to have someone pointing a gun at me to get me to go along or to take my property It's not your property. Would you defend yourself from someone stealing your property? If your answer is yes, you have shown why non-state socialism can exist.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 09:02 AM
2

Equal social services. Where do they get these? etc. All of these things they took away or perpetrated on men and now you think they should give them back. Where, exactly, do they get this authority? Because in order to do these things they seem to have to assert they can first. What is it that they assert they can do?
/r/MensRights18/09/12 08:27 AM
0

the government offering equal protection for both male and female citizens to being worker drones. How does the state do this?
/r/MensRights17/09/12 10:28 PM
2

That's true, but I am guessing he means state socialism and every implication from his comment sends to point to this. And even if he doesn't (which he doesn't have to), socialism still relies on production surplus coerced from its members.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 10:26 PM
7

Yeah, they make me uncomfortable too. I hate it when they bring up things I don't want to think about and therefore dismiss. Fucking libertarians.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 09:23 PM
5

Excellent.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 09:22 PM
0

Run along now.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 04:59 PM
0

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to merely say I think that this wild goose chase needs to be over. does not compute. And then you have the previous two responses of yours. Assange has to do is take an STD test and the 1st charge will most likely be dropped You are completely speaking out of your ass. How would you know what "most likely" would occur? They had entirely consensual sex. What was allegedly nonconsensual was the condom breaking. These are trumped up charges that should have been neve…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 03:33 PM
0

The second girl was not in a fully conscious state and therefore in no condition to give consent or not, that is not ok behavior. Well, she was conscious. The prosecution changed this to "asleep" in the charges, but the woman changed her story and said, "well, I was half asleep." She then threw a party for Assange that night where she described him as the coolest guy she'd ever met. The second incident was not technically consensual, it was in a very grey area. The woman admitted the sex was con…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 02:26 PM
7

Which is interesting considering the charges are for sex without a condom. however the second girl was unconscious when Assange started to have sex with her and might You mean she admitted she was "half-asleep." Which is different than "unconscious." meaning he still has some explaining to do Explaining that he had consensual sex with women while wearing a condom? What does this have to do with having sex without a condom? So I find most of this coverage to be overblown and one-sided and honestl…
/r/MensRights17/09/12 12:11 AM
5

They're willing to cause international incidents to get this man back to Sweden because he's been accused of having sex without a condom (the woman consented to the sex). One of the women said she was, "well, half asleep" as opposed to "asleep." The other woman threw a party for the man and was fawning all over him the night of the alleged incident. Both admit it was consensual sex. Sounds like rape to me.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 12:10 AM
1

I never said it was true in all circumstances. Right, you implied that it was usual for this to occur. My assertion is that this it is rare to receive compensation than not. Infinitely more reconcilable than death. Well, you can be compensated with money. You will never be given back the time, anguish, etc., which was taken from you and perpetrated on you. In that sense it it most certainly not "infinitely more reconcilable than death." Because the time and life are gone and will be gone forever…
/r/MensRights16/09/12 09:54 PM
1

No they cannot, however it is far closer to being reconcilable than is death. so not very much at all? likely a large sum of money. This is actually not true in quite a few circumstances.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 09:00 PM
1

all irreversible punishments should be outlawed. Is taking years of your life away an "irreversible" punishment? The state can give you those years back?
/r/MensRights15/09/12 03:30 PM
5

That's a good point that I didn't think about when I made the comment. Thanks.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 07:12 PM
37

it is just that women are so massively more likely to get custody that skews the apparent ratio. Yeah, that's a good point.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:56 PM
6

Historically you had the vote, property rights, higher pay, access to institutions women did not, etc... Okay. So what does that have to do with my privilege now. Historically, women were unable to be prosecuted for their crimes and their husbands or fathers were held responsible for their conduct. Therefore you are privileged today, right? In today's world you live in a culture when women are blamed for their rape You live in a different world than I do. the man can get a free pass in the eyes …
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:51 PM
6

What privileges do I get because I am male? Feminists are the greatest ally They could be if feminism was about gender equality; it's not. It's about women. It's about perpetrating the idea that gender equality is a zero-sum game where any gain for a male is a loss for females. It's not a zero sum game; we can all have equality and feminism is one of the main opponents to that equality. It opposes equality in parental rights, reproductive rights, marital rights, conscription, definition of rape,…
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:39 PM
30

It should be noted that the father is working to make sure she gets as much contact as possible AND it should be noted that SHE left HIM Although this is entirely anecdotal, I don't hear stories about men vindictively stopping the mother of their children from seeing them. I hear stories (and see them in my own life) of this happening constantly. I am not trying to claim that no man does this (I'm sure some do), but it seems like men are far less likely to do something like this than women.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:36 PM
1

This is true, but the speaker made two points (one about women in general and one about women in congress). I would note, however, that it is an average woman that has a tendency to do X instead of "women have a tendency to do X." Nuanced, but I think it more accurately reflects my point. I'm sure the women who aspire to attain office are borderline sociopaths just like the men.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:00 PM
3

Oh, they're not. Women are more likely to be anti-abortion than men.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:58 PM
0

Women, in general, are consensus builders (or at the very least consensus seekers). This is what psychological and sociological studies have shown. I do not think it would be smart to engage on this particular topic. An important question to ask is, "Why is consensus desirable?" Women, on average, are much more willing to go with the crowd. They have a stronger, negative emotional response to conflict and differing opinions. This can be a good and a bad thing. In the area of politics, in which i…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:41 PM
6

Have you considered asking someone else out?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:29 PM
3

I'll wait for the next interview where she says the same thing.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:23 PM
5

Pro-male reproductive rights? I doubt it. "Reproductive rights" are not a one-sided issue.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 04:22 PM
3

My "gifted" program consisted of me doing pretty much whatever I liked. I could go to classes or not it I didn't want to. The teacher was there to help me in whatever endeavor I wanted to do (within reason). The school system I was in refused to allow students to skip grades for "social reasons." I wasted years of my life in government schools being taught the lowest common denominator and indoctrinated with other worthless bullshit. So what did I do? Well, I took over the school system's comput…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:21 AM
1

The loving embrace of the cold machinery of government bureaucracy.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:13 AM
1

by using guns: the go-to solution to solving of "society's" perceived ills.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 12:11 AM
3

The army tends to attract people with mental health problems and it certainly doesn't make it better.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:00 PM
6

I think the best response to these sort of things is simply saying, "That's great, I'm sure the male will find this information very useful in deciding whether they want to be circumcised when they come of age." Instead of attacking the study, etc.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:20 PM
4

Great! I guess we can give them this article when they come of age and can make the decision for themselves. I'm rather bothered that people believe this sort of evidence supports the involuntary circumcision of baby boys. This piece looks like people trying to rationalize a procedure which is done primarily for cultural/religious reasons. Why don't they just come out and say than instead of dreaming up after-the-fact evidence for why it's not that bad.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:15 PM
3

I tire of posts such as these, the vast majority of parents do not cut their children's genitals because of dubious "health benefits" and other rationalizations for a procedure which is almost entirely cultural/religious. It looks like a team was dispatched to dream up rationalizations for parents to be comfortable performing an action which is based on cultural preference. Any of these rationalizations are easily swept aside by merely mentioning, "if the health benefits are great, why not expla…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:10 PM
0

... the "benefits" don't come until later in life. Why not postpone the decision so the child can at least have some discussion on whether they want to be permanently altered or not? The person you are talking to is not straw-manning your argument; you have built barriers to actions such as those because of your cultural bias.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:05 PM
4

... the child can always get circumcised later; it's not like it must be done to helpless infants strapped to a table.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 08:04 PM
42

"Don't worry, it's for your own good." "This hurts me more than it hurts you."
/r/MensRights10/08/12 04:40 PM
2

Do you think these observations rob it entirely of value?
/r/MensRights10/08/12 10:37 AM
1

Well, at least you have rationalized why you don't have to produce any evidence for your claims and don't have to engage me. If you think a link to a book written in 1935 about ancient cultures where the vast majority of humans alive were subsistence living is directly applicable to today, I don't really know what else to so. I'm sure there are interesting points, but I doubt the prescription is one which has a 80 year shelf-life. The linked speech was entirely irrelevant to the proposition. But…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 09:43 AM
3

It's like Stockholm syndrome. The posters in that thread are attacking what seemingly appears to be an abuse victim in place of the wife. The wife constantly belittles the males needs and shames him for having them. She uses abusive language in unrelated matters and neglects all of his needs... we're talking about basic intimacy (not sex). She won't even let him cook for her. At least their are armies of people in that thread to play up OCD and excuse her for acting like a shitty human-being. An…
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:54 PM
2

Please don't use my comment history to go downvote anything. goes directly to comment history. I don't think many people would have looked at your comment history if you hadn't drawn attention to it.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 12:54 PM
4

Yeah I'm sure he will. That doesn't really speak to the fact that he could have had the money, not been charged and force to stand trial for his life, and not had his life ruined. But at least given the fact that he was thrust into the circumstance, I'm sure he would choose freedom without money, his previous life, or his reputation to being thrown in a cage. I don't think you quite understand how much damage something like this does.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 02:00 PM
6

the defense knows all the arguments the prosecution will make, has more time to prepare, and it costs the state more money. the prosecution knows all the defense's evidence. Which do you think is more damaging? You understand the prosecution gives the defense most of the evidence they will be using anyway? it costs the state more money. If he has a private attorney, it will cost him a boatload more money too. If he isn't convicted, he'll probably lose everything anyway (if he hasn't already). th…
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:48 PM
7

sure did. New trial, lucky him, he'll probably be convicted again.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 01:37 PM
1

says the person not supporting his argument. At least you let Demonspawn fail in your place. It's funny because apparently asking a simple question is "full stupid." When a single question can put you on your heels, you may want to look at the "evidence" you have. What, exactly, do you think I am arguing?
/r/MensRights08/08/12 10:57 AM
1

And neither was Rome, nor Greece, nor Babylon. But when their men left traditional roles, they failed. Oh, and the vast, vast majority of the population in each of those examples was subsistence living. I certainly hope this is not the only basis of your belief.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 10:56 AM
17

That isn't legally admissible evidence in any state I know of and certainly not under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 08:38 AM
1

I believe in social pressure to enforce gender roles rather than using governmental force. me too. putting the individual above the society is exactly how we got into this mess that's fine, I prefer individuals to collectives and the individually expressed desires and needs of the collective.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:22 AM
1

You're another Liberal "MRA" who cares more about liberalism than MRM I care about individual rights. Many times this includes issues the MRM cares about. Tell me, how should we handle males who refuse to abide by their gender roles (determined by you of course)?
/r/MensRights06/08/12 03:15 AM
0

/facepalm "I haven't read the book either so I don't really know what is in it." Which is what I thought. And neither was Rome, nor Greece, nor Babylon. But when their men left traditional roles, they failed. there's a scientific survey if I ever saw one. I'm sure ancient societies have incredibly on point observations for modern society. I guess the answer for both of you is, "I don't have evidence, but it feels right and fits my worldview." I'm sure this argument is convincing... for people wh…
/r/MensRights06/08/12 01:59 AM
0

If you don't want to learn from history, you'll be doomed to repeat it. I wouldn't read a book about transportation over long distances written before trains or plains existed too. If you would like to point out some main points, I'd be glad to entertain them but I am unwilling to read an entire book trying to find your argument for you... especially when it was written in 1935 about gender roles and the effects of removing them... in 1935. Traditional roles is what built society. What happens w…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:55 PM
0

A book written in 1934. I'll go ahead and pass; something tells me his observations about "society" and its success are a bit dated. The speech doesn't actually support the assertion that men rejecting their traditional roles leads to the destruction of "society." Did you actually have support for such an assertion or is it based on something else?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:34 PM
0

Sex and Culture" is one source. "Is There Anything Good about Men" is another. this doesn't help me or everyone else at all. There are multiple books and articles that carry those names. Did you have a link or would you paraphrase what those books are attempting to show? This isn't the 1800s anymore and we don't live in tribal groups hunting along the plains. There is a reason society is resisting allowing men to reject gender roles: they know it is social suicide. I doubt it is in reaction to s…
/r/MensRights05/08/12 11:03 PM
1

Why do we know that?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 09:13 AM
2

why?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:58 AM
5

Can you push both? What if I want men to be able to be more like men without being berated and men who want to be more like women do so without being berated?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:53 AM
2

Let me repeat it for you: I didn't attack you, I suggested that your reasoning was considered underdeveloped according to psychologists Stop being so passive-aggressive and attempting to hide personal insults with veiled qualifiers and simply come out and say it. It makes you look more silly than you usually do. That a person would take it as an attack should be indicative of them realizing the semblance of truth in the statement. Right. Keep up those veiled, passive-aggressive insults. Are you …
/r/MensRights03/08/12 06:06 AM
2

I didn't attack you, I suggested that your reasoning was considered underdeveloped according to psychologists Really Ig? Did you get that out with a straight face?
/r/MensRights03/08/12 02:50 AM
1

because she didn't implicate herself in a crime earlier? Okay.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 04:01 AM
4

Ahh, I get it; "Hate speech" is what you define it as instead of those bad people who misuse it. I wonder if they think they same of you? The idea of protecting someone's rights being hateful through someone elses eyes is a concept I don't even want to understand. I don't understand this sentence so at least we are both confused. What this feminist has written in her blog is pure, admitted, unashamed hate speech, and to give a free pass simply because such has been used to silence MRAs in the pa…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:53 AM
0

derp; it can hurt the person for using protected speech.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:04 AM
8

MRAs supporting the concept of "hate speech" is a rather odd thing. You understand how many times MRA causes and statements have been labeled "hate speech"? If this concept takes hold, how, exactly, do you expect MRAs to speak about anything? Trying to label others' speech in a certain way to get it censored is a very sharp, double edged sword.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 04:02 AM
1

I still stand by my statement because admitting there may be cases which you do not lead a lawyer will lead to people falsely judging they don't need a lawyer and then being severely punished for it. Lawyers are expensive, but you cannot afford to go without one.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 01:13 AM
1

You're right, it's not. But one wrong doesn't justify another wrong.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 01:08 AM
10

and men do not vote in their group's self-interest. In fact, they vote in womens' interest. women nearly always vote in their groups self-interest.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:38 AM
6

A false allegation charge would have to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, just like every other crime not to be charged, arrested, or imprisoned. And if you were wondering, innocent people are actually convicted all the time and this doesn't account for the 94% of charges which never make it to trial. I think you are severely downplaying the threat of action involved in the criminal injustice system and the many costs it imposes on people never found guilty of anything (or even charged).
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:35 AM
2

gee, someone ignorant of libertarianism. No way. based on their refusal to acknowledge negative externalities libertarians do not reject the existence of negative externalities. Not to mention, they aren't actually a political party Libertarian Party. Find me a Libertarian that throws their weight behind a Pigvoian tax system and that will be my candidate for all time pigovian taxes are silly given that there are other ways to deal with externalities by actually compensating those effected by th…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:28 AM
9

young boys*, not young children. Female genital cutting is banned in the UK.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 10:24 AM
3

so not me? Seems fair to punish me for other's actions.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 01:47 AM
1

Absolutely, but if it were appropriately labeled, the sociopaths running and staffing prisons will have to think of another way to cause pain to gain compliance. It used to be beating the shit out of people, but that is too ugly. It's much easier to simply shut someone in a hole where they don't have a voice. They'll do more of what cops already do: use tasers to electro-shock people to cause enough paid to gain obedience.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 06:27 PM
0

An action should be judged by its likely/possible consequences. I think actions should be judged by their 1) inherent nature 2) intent 3) actual consequences 4) likely consequences.
/r/MensRights05/07/12 04:14 PM
12

Fighting the EEOC is like fighting an opponent whose only purpose is to fuck you over and has an unlimited bankroll to do it.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 11:27 AM
0

The actions of the police force are not violent unless they choose to make them so. threats of violence are still violence. Why is arresting someone violent in your opinion? threat of violence. Physically restraining someone is violent. The actions of the police, again, are not violent due to the fact that they are taking preventative measures in order to ensure the safety and well-being of others This doesn't change the nature of their actions. Their ends are irrelevant to whether their actions…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 10:25 AM
1

When the police put handcuffs on the suspect, did they intent to physically restrain him? Does the act of being arrested fall under the scope of violence in your opinion? Absolutely. So does threatening someone with force to get them to submit to your arrest. So does pulling a gun on someone. So does handcuffing someone. So does threatening someone to stop them from walking away. I don't care what their ends are, I care what they are currently doing and what their intentions are. They currently …
/r/MensRights04/07/12 10:16 AM
1

It is different in that you are trying to categorize police force as violence. Their actions are violent. Imprisoning someone is violent. Arresting someone is violent. Threatening violence against someone is violence. matters because use of police force to arrest an individual can not be classified as violence. Why? Please, tell me a definition of "violence" where the actions of cops in this manner are not violence. It has everything to do with this topic, since you are trying to claim that the …
/r/MensRights04/07/12 09:55 AM
1

Police doing their job and making arrests based upon available information does not equate violence What is your definition of violence? Perhaps this is legally permissible violence or whatever other adjective you would like to attach, but it is most certainly violence and I think you would have some trouble trying to come up with an accepted definition of violence which excludes actions done by certain people because they are wearing the right costume. I asked this above, but are you suggesting…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:44 AM
1

The difference is that she did not commit the above crime. She, like the person ordering the murder, both 1) told someone something 2) which they knew would cause something to happen 3) for the purpose of causing that something to happen. What is the difference between the two? In your scenario, the violence comes from a private individual, and in the actual case, it may or may not have come from the police force. Why does this matter? They are doing something violent. Are you suggesting that th…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:37 AM
1

Irrelevant, like the rest of your whining Derp. I don't care to bicker with you. It's obvious your feelings are hurt and you have thrown rationality out the window. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:35 AM
0

The false accusation rate itself would go way down if false accusers knew they could go to jail for years if caught. They already can go to jail for years. I would argue that a lot fewer men would go to jail in the first place if we harshly punished false accusers. I doubt it. People do not usually falsely accuse after reasoned thought out analysis. They do it because they are really upset and irrational. Having your life destroyed and spending years behind bars (in an environment in which you c…
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:25 AM
1

Please try to see where I am coming from before you flip out on me. You think this is flipping out on you? What? I understand where you are coming from, but rape and lying are not morally equivalent.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 07:08 AM
6

Cops aren't supposed to commit extra-judicial violence. I didn't put the adjective "extra-judicial" on the word violence for a reason. She's guilty of a crime all right, but she had no power to make it violent until the cops broke the law on their own. No one broke the law. They were acting in the law when they used violence on an innocent person. Her crime is simply not that category. Her crime caused that violence and she committed her crime knowing it would. In fact, she counted on it.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 01:07 PM
3

Actually this, bad as it is, is not the worst thing religious people do to us. They strap children down to a board, pull their penis out, detach the skin from the head of the penis, and then cut it off with a knife while the baby is heaving out blood curdling screams. They usually do all of this without anesthesia. While the religious have done quite a few heinous things over the course of history, I think this one is still an important topic to be brought up and one which is very important to m…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 10:37 AM
3

Are you involved in the violent crime? Yes. This is the only question I asked. Yes. Did you commit it? No, you committed a different crime. Which you still claim is a violent crime. What makes the person who tells a lie to authorities which they know will be used to commit violence on another different from this scenario?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 10:32 AM
0

She did not commit a violent crime due to the fact that she did not bring violence down upon him. She told a lie to people who she knew would commit violence on someone. Do you disagree with this? Rape is a bit different since it does not always encompass male rape, and some laws need to be rewritten. "This argument only works when I agree with it. When this argument is used and contradicts my opinion in another area, the argument is bad and should be changed." Do you think those saying she comm…
/r/MensRights03/07/12 10:31 AM
9

mmm discrimination is fine when I agree with it, obviously.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:58 AM
0

lying != rape. Lying about rape != rape. Your aversion is at the failure of the injustice system to handle false accusers more than the act of lying.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:49 AM
0

No legal system is better than one where you can be thrown in jail without any proof at all. because a person saying they were raped is "no proof at all." Come now.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:47 AM
-1

The incidence of rape liars coming forward is minuscule. even if there is no likely punishment. Do you think increasing punishment will increase or decrease people coming forward or not engaging in the conduct in the first place? I would prefer a certain period of "safe harbor" which there would be no punishment and then a severe punishment. In any case, if someone comes forward voluntarily and admits to any crime, this is taken into account in sentencing. They were sentenced for lying, not for …
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:46 AM
2

So your response is, "well it's not in the definition of a 'violent crime' so therefore it is not a violent crime" I wonder if you accept this rational for rape. "It's not rape because the state defines rape as X."
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:44 AM
7

Perjury which sprung to action violence... it caused it. If I ordered someone to go kill another, am I engaged in a violent crime?
/r/MensRights03/07/12 09:43 AM
1

Well, looks like I am staying late... wasted a couple hours reading through all of that.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 02:47 PM
16

Not all woman are like that; in fact I would go as far to say that most women are not like that. Many women who I have discussed MR issues with say to me, "You know what, you're right. At first it made me angry, but you're right." On a side note, hate comes from anger and it sounds like you are having quite an issue dealing with anger. I would suggest you talk to a therapist about these feelings. Search for the good, cut out the bad. The world is full of great things, do not get so caught up on …
/r/MensRights02/07/12 11:43 AM
3

Common law marriage is ridiculous. Nothing like obligations you never agreed to.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 09:02 AM
1

And easier to get going. fair enough.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:59 PM
1

fair enough.
/r/MensRights13/06/12 03:55 PM
2

Why buy another device when you already have one that does the job well anyway?
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:34 PM
8

cellphones
/r/MensRights12/06/12 01:38 PM
3

How would a school model without mandatory public schooling look like? Schools would be privately owned and privately funded. Children would either attend them or not. The current K-12 "education" system is actually incredibly bad at producing people who are economically valuable. So after hundreds of thousands spent on the education per a student, they are still effectively unable to find gainful employment without further actual education. Schools would be free to adopt whatever model they cho…
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:53 AM
2

I guess ridding ourselves of mandatory public schooling is out of the question? I guess we'll stick with medicating and abusing them to get the children to submit.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:53 AM
1

I don't know what the point of your comment, so I guess we're both confused.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 07:07 AM
1

I'm sure the slaves in the South were enslaved for a reason. it's a means, not a goal. Yeah, picking cotton is the goal. Enslaving millions is the means. So what?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:32 AM
0

Why do you think this is vaguely responsive to my comment?
/r/MensRights07/06/12 05:53 AM
1

I would try to communicate to her just how much it hurts to be punched in the balls. A lot of women simply do not know how much it hurts. If she is dismissive, refuses to apologize, or gives a fake apology, dump her.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 07:20 AM
4

40 years is insane. Prison sentences in this country are out of control.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 07:16 AM
2

Oh, I know your error, you think the 14th Amendment means what it actually says. Silly goose.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 02:11 PM
5

I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen. This is the best quote in the whole article. I don't think you are claiming that men don't have any advantages, I think you are merely claiming that all "advantages" come with a very high price tag. This is the main issue I have with the repeated statement "male privilege." It's key to completely detach the individual from the statistics, but then use those statistics…
/r/MensRights03/05/12 09:07 AM
3

People have very low bars to be convinced of the first thing they are told and set these extremely high bars (preferably impossible to meet) for anything to convince them otherwise. And everything they see reinforces the first position. Does God exist? Well, I was told God exist and a story convinced me when I was young. But you are going to have to show me empirical proof that God doesn't exist or you're wrong and I'm right.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:47 AM
0

The best response to this nonsense is simply making the statement, "well, you have an excellent business strategy. You should start a company and only hire women. You will be paying 25% less on wages than men for the exact same work! You'll be filthy rich over night! When you guys get into business, only hire women and you'll have an extra 25% in your labor budget!" It's complete bullshit obviously. But when has lying and misleading ever caused feminists to slow down?
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:44 AM
2

You been to Compton? Do you even know where it is?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:33 PM
2

I guess you ignored the projects in other western democracies? Which are rich nations?
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:33 PM
1

But when I come on here, time and time again I see posters saying that all women are gold-digging whore feminists. Provide evidence for this claim because I am calling you on your bullshit. It is so plentiful, it must be easy. I want to see a comment, which is not downvoted into oblivion, claiming all women are 1) gold-digging, 2) whores, and 3) feminists. Or that if women are raped they deserve it. The thread you linked doesn't support these claims.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 04:26 PM
1

I didn't assert that. Which is what I previously stated and I guess you just overlooked when you were reading my response. Problem solved I guess.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 03:01 PM
1

It's fallacious, not because it's wrong, but because it's faulty logic. Why? Or more appropriately, how? I'm not making some argument that you must be X, I am saying that I suspect you are X because of reasons W, Y, Z. Actually, what do you even think I am assuming? Glad you fired your lawyer. I bet he was relieved. I don't usually get into arguments with laymen about the process, the correct action, etc., and I certainly won't spend much time on it when I am not even being paid.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 02:53 PM
1

The problem is that you think the Bar Association is so exclusive that somebody outside can't possibly think logically and process his own arguments. I don't even remotely think this. You demonstrate your superiority by assuming a stranger on the internet can't possibly have much experience because he's not bar licensed. Than some attorneys, sure that may be the case. Than the majority of attorneys? I seriously doubt it; and your comments on the process and claims reinforced that suspicion. The …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 02:44 PM
1

I've had clients like you in the past. The best thing to do is get them to fire you so you don't have to make up some reason for the court to grant a withdrawal. You obviously have more experience in the legal world, the law, legal arguments, and the court than an actual lawyer; I hope you made sure to educate them on the law and tell them how to do their jobs because you have more experience. I bet they loved that. The problem with your plan is that you don't actually get any justice, you just …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 02:23 PM
1

Go do it, come back and tell me how it went. I'm a lawyer, but you clearly have more experience in these matters. The legal system in the United States (or anywhere) is not really concerned with "justice."
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:49 PM
0

This comment didn't help either. He's not going to win. He is going to piss away money and time in either circumstance.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:41 PM
1

Well, if I didn't think you had no idea what you were talking about to begin with this definitely changed my entire opinion. Yes. OP you should piss money down the drain on the civil lawsuit for some chick writing mean words on your car.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:08 PM
1

True, but so what? Drafted and passed by Republicans over a filibuster by Democrats. Ignorance, we meet again! I'm not one to defend Republics, they're both two sides of the same piece of shit, but I tire of revisionist history. Cheers.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 07:19 AM
1

Good luck with that argument. Make sure to call the prosecutor directly so he can laugh at you when you complain about having to wash your windows off.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 07:18 AM
1

Republicans have done little besides limiting rights, so I'm naturally wary when it comes to such legislation. They both do. If you didn't realize, they're the same party.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 07:18 AM
1

I figured principles* would matter a bit more here. They don't unfortunately. (unless you meant you figured you would find head admins of schools here).
/r/MensRights02/05/12 07:11 AM
3

Republican legislation related to civil rights always gives me an uneasy feeling, You mean like the Civil Rights Acts of 1964?
/r/MensRights01/05/12 05:56 AM
2

That was my comment and I didn't imply feminists were aggressors at all.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:29 AM
2

I doubt they would arrest you for this either. It's not vandalism if there is no property damage. She would have to lie and include other facts to get you arrested (and surely you would have to include many, many more for the same result).
/r/MensRights30/04/12 11:39 PM
-5

Your comments are barely responsive to mine. If you want to rant, you go right on ahead. God knows most men deserve to.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 10:25 PM
1

If you believe that your vagina is of greater good to his penis, then* you are mistaken.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 10:08 PM
-1

I think there isn't much of a difference between randomly selecting people on the street to enslave (which are usually men) and enslaving everyone (which are mostly men). And the "yep" was sarcasm.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:56 PM
1

I don't even know how to respond to this. Your argument is basically: Stealing from men directly to support children is wrong; The government should, instead, steal from everyone, take a cut, and pass the remainder along to women/children. Pure win. You prefer your legalized theft in one form, over the other? An alimony check to uncle sam is OK, but directly to the women is an unspeakable evil? Yep. Please, do stay in the subReddit. We have too many people here whose solution to all problems is …
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:36 PM
7

WTB due process.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 09:35 PM
0

I disagree, but why is that relevant to now?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 05:53 PM
2

The funny thing is the title should actually be "18 20 Things Guys Should Do To Pick Up Girls."
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:51 AM
1

I'd take her out on a date just to see her face when I tell her I forgot my wallet.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:48 AM
4

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:43 AM
3

Fewer trifling bitches and their white knights you have to deal with. Sounds horrible. You should have been more clever. I would have said something like "So you wanted to be treated differently because you have tits and a vagina?" Don't be surprised when people treat you like tits and a vagina.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:40 AM
6

The only thing abusers know is abuse. The only thing the government knows is violence. When any of them see any social problem, they automatically go to abuse or violence as a means to try and solve it. Typically, that means making the problem worse.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 11:28 AM
3

TIL.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 01:14 AM
3

Sophistry. You should have left it up and changed the name to FAKE to let everyone see.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 12:37 AM
2

/r/iwantout I know fathers want to see their kids and this is the main reason most men do not do this; they willingly subject themselves to involuntary servitude because they want to see their kids for that one day a week and every other weekend. How sad is that reality? But how much will you be able to participate in their lives and how much are you sacrificing? As long as the system is this unfair, you should refuse to participate.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 11:35 AM
3

You should leave the country.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 10:36 AM
3

The chick didn't plead guilty to killing her baby and dumping the dead body in the grocery story bathroom. If you want to complain about the underlying alleged facts and the charges brought, you knock yourself out, but this is simply lying. I guess anyone not willing to lose all credibility and discredit the MRM is a white knight. Derp.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 07:01 PM
1

You didn't even read the article. You're lying constantly with respect to these headlines. She never plead guilty to killing her baby. You are discrediting the movement with this constant stream of false headlines.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:42 PM
4

Maybe they just aren't getting what the need from their wives. An accusation of "stupidity" can usually be cleared up with a discussion about preferences. If you prefer that cigarette more than a couple years on the end of your life, then you would appear stupid to someone that values length of life above all else. But neither of you are "stupid." Frankly, I just don't care much about the constant bitching and moaning about political correctness. And I think people discredit themselves for engag…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:38 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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