TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Time-Inevitable-3334 Archive

View 0 posts and 31 comments by Time-Inevitable-3334 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

"and the women are fitter, hotter," The question was best nations for men's rights and freedoms.....women being fit or hot is a "Men's right or Freedom"? Wtf lmao.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 02:37 AM
1

This should be 2 conversation IMO, and i've had this convo before in this sub a couple of years ago. There are 2 "versions" of conscription I think we should discuss: The first kind is like what we had for Vietnam (US being the aggressor, with no direct threat to the US) For this kind, we should be putting our energy to abolishing conscription of that sort all together, as opposed to pushing for women to being included in it. The second kind, is your country is being invaded and is on the bring …
/r/MensRights15/07/26 06:52 PM
0

No goal posts have shifted. This is sort of going around in circles I've provided examples of anti conscription campaigns limiting conscription deaths in wars, which proves that the energy was better spent (as opposed to trying to have women come along), which also proves your Nirvana fallacy claim as a straw man. It's my opinion that the energy is better served getting conscription abolished.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 03:11 AM
-1

You should have a look at my post above. I'll copy it here for ease: I don't mean to give off the impression that I think it would be easy; I just don't see the usefulness of 4 threads and thousands of comments getting mad that women are not included, as opposed to putting that same effort to ensure that conscription is a thing of the past. Like I wrote in another post, if any modern western/NATO country is on the verge of a total military defeat and about to be taken over, then all bets are off…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 02:42 AM
1

I don't mean to give off the impression that I think it would be easy; I just don't see the usefulness of 4 threads and thousands of comments getting mad that women are not included, as opposed to putting that same effort to ensure that conscription is a thing of the past. Like I wrote in another post, if any modern western/NATO country is on the verge of a total military defeat and about to be taken over, then all bets are off....whether women are conscripted or not, will be the least of anyone…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:57 AM
0

If any modern western/NATO country is on the verge of a total military defeat and about to be taken over, then all bets are off....whether women are conscripted or not, will be the least of anyone's concerns, especially for the women in said country... Vietnam, for example, did not need a draft, yet there was one. That is generally what I am referring to.
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:48 AM
0

Claiming Quebec threw a fit and didn't want to help, when over 20% of Canada's volunteer fighting force in WW2 were French Quebecers, is another slap in the face of actual history. Yes Quebec was the largest voice against conscription, but that literally has no baring on this discussing; they were against it, and their pressure campaign largely worked. All you did in your post was list reasons why their pressure campaign worked. My point is, its defeatist and against your own interest to not be …
/r/MensRights07/07/22 01:42 AM
-2

Ukrain's conscripts are built into their law, and have been for decades, which is exactly what I am saying that you should be focusing your energy towards. Calling the pushback against conscription a "Nirvana fallacy", spits in the face of events like the Conscription Crisis of 1944. Those protesters successfully limited the role conscriptions played in the war, resulting in only 69 front line conscription deaths. If you ask me, them pushing back against conscription as a whole, as opposed to fo…
/r/MensRights07/07/22 12:28 AM
-2

And all male conscription is legal also. My point is, the better fight is to stop it from happening in the first place; not ensuring its enacted equally. Edit: Maybe i'm just naïve, I just don't understand the focus on making something shitty even shittier just for the sake of equality, as opposed to spending all your energy getting rid of the shitty thing. (And by "you", I dont mean you personally)
/r/MensRights06/07/22 09:05 PM
-21

And my opinion is that you (or people in general) should be focusing your efforts to ensure that drafts are not inevitable (ie, a constitutional amendment outlawing them), as opposed to ensuring they include both sexes.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 09:00 PM
-25

I understand the goal, it was literally the second part of my sentence. Why do you feel that incorporating women is the path of least resistance, vs removing drafts altogether?
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:55 PM
-24

IMO your focus should be on stopping drafts altogether, not wasting energy for them to also include women.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:47 PM
-11

I don't get the knee jerk reaction by most people of "why not women also?" Conscription in general should be banned, not modified to incorporate women. All-volunteer armies are the best in the world.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 08:45 PM
2

Exactly...I just commented something similar, although something tells me it too will get downvoted to oblivion lol Just like we shouldn't believe all women, we also shouldn't believe all men.
/r/MensRights06/07/22 07:58 PM
1

I agree, the botched procedure and then lack of care afterwards, were the driving factor. What in the comment you quoted makes you think that I think otherwise?
/r/MensRights06/07/22 07:56 PM
-3

Was it proven to be a false allegation? If so, then that really sucks, and there should be consequences for the girl and her parents. ...if not, then just like we shouldn't believe "all women", we also shouldn't believe "all men"
/r/MensRights06/07/22 07:54 PM
-2

Maybe. Im kinda new to this sub, so its possible im not getting a nuance or something. IMO, if you are not ready to pay for a child, knowing that the women could choose to keep it, it is absolutely your right to not shoot inside. Edit for grammar
/r/MensRights06/07/22 03:24 PM
-2

"Is it not a man's prerogative to then state, it's my money, it's my choice when it comes to child support?" It is 100% your prerogative to not shoot inside, no?
/r/MensRights06/07/22 03:07 PM
1

I'm genuinely curious; why do you keep side stepping the fact they were turned away at the ER multiple times? I fully understand the holistic point that if they hadn't went for the circumcision in the first place, they wouldn't have had the need to visit the ER afterwards, but I am genuinely curious why you don't feel it factors into the outcome at all?
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:59 PM
1

Why would you be expecting any bullshit from me? I'm simply trying to understand if the person I replied to, was implying that Islam has an anti male agenda. It is the first time I have heard anyone express that opinion, so just wanted to be sure.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:55 PM
2

Ah ok, you meant to say that 60% of Victoria BC is without a personal Dr, not that 60% of Canadians are, got it! I can't find any Victoria data to support that, but ill take you word for it if you are from there.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:49 PM
2

Yikes, where did you get that 60% number from? The real number, if you were curious, is 14% (of which, roughly 2/3rds simply haven't tried to find one according to the data) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-625-x/2020001/article/00004-eng.htm It's surprisingly close to the % of people in the US who just flat out don't have health insurance at all, but this has gone quite a bit off topic. https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/
/r/MensRights05/07/22 12:11 AM
1

Medical mal practice is unfortunately common in non single payer, universal healthcare as well: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-america.html
/r/MensRights04/07/22 09:45 PM
-1

I mean, why are you pretending that medical mal practice wasn't the driving force of the article/death? https://emilyjerryfoundation.org/emilys-story/ Medical mal-practice is unfortunately very common
/r/MensRights04/07/22 09:27 PM
4

Exactly...why is that fact being lost so hard in this thread lol
/r/MensRights04/07/22 06:50 PM
6

Did you read the article? They were turned away by the ER multiple times. The circumcision did not cause the brain damage, the medical malpractice afterwards did. The same type of thing happens, unfortunately, all the time for a number of other medical procedures.
/r/MensRights04/07/22 06:49 PM
5

The family in this case did it due to their Muslim faith. By "in this culture", are you implying that Islam is overrun by a feminist or anti male agenda?
/r/MensRights04/07/22 06:48 PM
1

What are you guys more concerned with; the fact that he had a circumcision due to his religion, or the fact that there was medical mal practice?
/r/MensRights04/07/22 06:45 PM
1

The law does not state that communications of a sexual nature are not relevant. It literally says the following (bold for the important part): "The Criminal Code says evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activities that are unrelated to the charges at hand" If there is a claim that a specific encounter was non consensual, you are absolutely permitted to present whatever evidence you have to prove otherwise. What you can't do, is provide information on other past sexual encounters not specifi…
/r/MensRights03/07/22 06:26 PM
2

You are absolutely correct. The law prevents you from bringing up stuff like "She slept with all of my friends in front me a few years ago " in order to try and imply that they are a slut, and therefore wanted it. The law does not prevent you from producing evidence, in any form, that shows that the encounter being questioned was consensual. It breaks my heart that anyone pointing this out is getting downvoted. Intentionally mischaracterizing the law in order to claim victimhood, is exactly what…
/r/MensRights03/07/22 06:20 PM
1

That's not at all what the law does. The law prevents their sexual past from being brought up, not actions related to the specific case in point. For example, a defendant can't say "As you know, she let 17 guys run a train on her 2 years ago, therefore she definitely wanted it form me last month".
/r/MensRights03/07/22 04:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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