TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Torquemada1970 Archive

View 3 posts and 470 comments by Torquemada1970 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
13

2017
/r/PussyPassDenied22/02/22 09:51 AM
7

Once he wakes up with his wallet missing
/r/PussyPassDenied05/11/21 11:47 AM
42

"Don't be fooled by the cocks that I got...."
/r/PussyPassDenied14/10/21 08:53 PM
1

Reddit, where every sub is a 'safe space'
/r/PussyPassDenied17/09/21 07:36 PM
1

You need to watch the full video
/r/PussyPassDenied18/05/21 05:48 PM
1

Godzilla vs. King Karen
/r/PussyPassDenied15/04/21 07:21 PM
3

<Megan Fox has entered the chat>
/r/PussyPassDenied28/02/21 10:14 AM
1

"Celebrate Good Times, come on....Incel Celebration...."
/r/PussyPassDenied25/02/21 04:17 PM
1

We're including trans incels too?
/r/PussyPassDenied25/02/21 03:14 PM
1

And in any case, if we had 'femcels', we'd also have to have 'mencels'.....
/r/PussyPassDenied25/02/21 02:23 PM
5

I've always defined them as the 'bullying minority'
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/21 02:12 PM
10

That's the way reddit tells it
/r/PussyPassDenied25/01/21 01:21 PM
1

I used to carry an apple. Always led to hilarity when asked for money to buy food.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/01/21 11:46 AM
1

Is it the Hugh-Mongous woman?
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/21 09:16 PM
-1

AFTER one has left school. But you're right - it's just like teaching abstinence; we're obviously just not teaching enough, early enough. Thank god you're here.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 07:22 PM
-1

after one has left school.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 03:51 PM
-1

This kind of attitude doesn't last long after one has left school.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:51 PM
0

And you really, seriously think it's an app that's purely for dating? Really?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:26 PM
1

I haven’t even said it’s wrong though You've said (for example) that anyone that hasn't had a partner for a year or so 'must be the problem'. That's just one example - maybe you don't realise you're doing it? I don’t see drug use as inherently right or wrong either Depends on the drug, surely. and it’d be hypocritical for me to say so seeing as I get fucked up on molly and shrooms at every single music festival I go to. So have millions (including me) - but that's not the same as meth/ crack/ he…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:25 PM
1

Sure, it's that simple. How long have you used Tinder for, exactly?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:15 PM
1

’m allowed to not like certain behaviours while acknowledging that people can go ahead and do as they please. But that doesn't give you the right to pretend they're wrong or compare their actions to taking heroin. I’m not a huge fan of shooting heroin, but it’s not my place to force people to not do it if that’s what they want to do See? The fact that you jump to this as an example speaks volumes. People can do as they please and I’m allowed to not like what people do. So you say 'not for me, I'…
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:14 PM
1

Tinder is an exclusively dating app? You need to look into this more.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:11 PM
1

I never said people can’t go ahead and sleep around But you then judge them for doing so, with a very shallow justification
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:05 PM
7

The existence of Tinder suggests that 'you're likely the problem' is a bit simplistic.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 02:02 PM
74

I would suggest that it's more a case of not wanting a body count higher than theirs
/r/PussyPassDenied30/12/20 12:15 PM
2

Courtship is what you do when you have a relationship with someone. It hasn't disappeared. What makes me laugh is the obvious age of so many of the prudish redditors ITT.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/12/20 01:02 PM
-3

"This woman has had sexual activity, what a whore" ....but let's all make fun of the white knights in 'how can she slap'. EDIT: LOL stay classy, reddit. Let's make fun of countries that make a low-numbers sexual history count important for women and then do the shame thing to our own. 'Your mother mates out of season'.
/r/PussyPassDenied29/12/20 12:57 PM
1

You talk to yourself as well, then? Figures. You've 'admitted' a lot more than you seem to realise, that's why this is comedy gold. Explain why 'touching' is a subset of 'interfering', and why touching itself isn't part of the header in the first place. Y'know, in the way you avoided doing so before (even after it was pointed out that you were doing it). It'll be entertaining, 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 01:04 PM
1

Note how you don't actually address what I replied with in the last comment. Again. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:54 PM
1

Note how you don't actually address what I replied with in the last comment. Again. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:47 PM
1

I’m not cherry picking anything. Er...I just highlighted how you were doing it Karen. Do try to keep up. It’s a simple sentence you don’t agree with. 'Simple' is what you've demonstrated yourself to be, a number of times. Note how you don't actually address what I replied with in the last comment. Again. Get over it That's your job. You've just made yourself look like a tool on a public board, you have a lot to unpack 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:44 PM
1

Number 3 subsection 2. Yeah Karen, keep saying it, that'll change...er...something. The word used is touch, it’s against the law to touch them without permission. Interfere. Because there are a number of ways you can touch without interfering - that's why it's worded that way. I didn’t write it You can't even comprehend it, so no need to tell me that. and you can’t comprehend it. You're right, when someone cherry-picks and gets caught out with their own BS, it's beyond comprehension. Oh look, yo…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:39 PM
1

Not sure what you’re chasing here princess Being entertained by a dumb cunt. Do try to keep up. it’s against the law to touch them without permission. Interfere. Do try to keep up and quote your own guff properly, even when it doesn't illustrate what you wanted. If you get told to get fucked for touching one that’s on you. Because most dogs like this are trained properly so that it's irrelevant. And in almost all cases, people don't 'get told' this in any way at all, that's why this clip became …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:30 PM
1

One thing is clear, your sense of entitlement FTFY. Keep going, you'll be doing comprehension instead of spelling next if you carry on doing this well....'you dumb cunt'. Might want to stick to Facebook, Karen. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:25 PM
1

LOL, OK Karen. The law is enforced based on your opinion. Comedy gold. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:22 PM
1

You haven't highlighted anything at all yet 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:21 PM
1

Yeah, uh you've already done this one - so now you have to explain what 'intentionally interferes with the use of a guide dog by harassing or obstructing the guide dog user or his or her guide dog' has to do with petting them, because - shock - it won't be purely based on your opinion. Still zero for five. Feel free to repeat what you've evidently not actually had to defend before for a third time 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:19 PM
1

Petting them isn't fucking with them - and all you've provided are the answers to 'can a store ask me to leave', which it doesn't answer anyway. Plus it looks like that's advice for one state, you haven't even left the USA yet - gosh, you're doing really well. Try again, 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:15 PM
1

...and what happens if you do? That's what you were supposed to be detailing. Do try to keep up 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:12 PM
1

That’s subsection 1 dummy. C’mon buddy what’s number 2? You already asked this, 'you dumb cunt'. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:10 PM
1

No worries, 'the law' will help you. Oh wait, it won't. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:08 PM
1

That’s subsection 1 dummy. That's right. Go you - 'you dumb cunt'. C’mon buddy what’s number 2? 'Do I need a vest' - oh look, you can't even remember what section you originally mentioned. Now quote the whole of number three and explain what the law says you can actually do. You can't even stop the property from asking you to leave, as they can do this for any reason (note that the question is posed but not answered - 'you dumb cunt'.). We're already at zero for five anyway. Find something that'…
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:07 PM
1

You're right, any site that cites zero studies and calls people hoomans is a bastion of statistical study. Zero for five. Gosh, you're good at this. 'Stuff' must be so happy. Here’s another reason why you’re a dumb cunt Do you think I'm your dog/ wife as well now Karen? Go on. Dance some more. You're doing really well.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 12:00 PM
1

Aggressively staring at your dog You're right. It's hilarious.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 11:57 AM
1

No, I need links that point to justify your bs, Karen. Intentionally interferes with the use of a guide dog by harassing or obstructing the guide dog user or his or her guide dog Patting a dog isn't interfering with it. It also can be a crime to negligently permit a dog to injure an assistance dog. Nothing to do with this thread. Intentionally injuring an assistance dog can also be a misdemeanor. Nothing to do with this thread. So you're zero for three. Do carry on with this comedy gold.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 11:55 AM
1

More 'these laws have nothing to do with petting a dog, or their training' links you mean. So no, not some more actually.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 11:51 AM
1

If he was a trained service dog, he wouldn't be distracted. It's that simple. Has been for the dozens of decades guide dogs for the blind have been in service.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 11:49 AM
2

Neither my bum nor my dog are yours Well done, thanks for highlighting something nobody needed explaining. Again. and you’re not allowed to touch either I'm sure your service dog is trained not to want that...oh wait, that doesn't matter, it's your 'property' first. Is their name 'Stuff' so that you can say to people 'don't touch my Stuff'? there’s laws in place so idiots like yourself who can’t grasp the concept of private property and keep their hands to themselves Do illustrate where someone …
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 10:38 AM
2

Your dog is your bum, now? Or do you mean that women are the same as dogs?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 04:22 AM
1

It's almost like virtually every interaction with a dog in the world is classed as 'other people's shit' so that you can pretend it's an ownership issue instead of patting a friendly dog. Oh look, others have been down this justification path before and failed due to the sheer number of properly trained service dogs that will accept a pat on the head without reacting ( see: ALL GUIDE DOGS). Try again.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/09/20 03:39 AM
1

Sure, it never happens anywhere else, with any dog, including service dogs. Try again.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/09/20 08:29 PM
-1

This post is a bit crap. Parents that say they used to be more tired before they had children - zero. EDIT: LOL, a downvoter who has somehow neglected to say 'that's not true, I've got kids'. How about that. Colour me surprised....it's hard explaining such things to children.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/09/20 01:42 PM
5

LOL at all the downvotes. Number of women that have done this to me - lots. Number of men that have done this to me - NONE.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/09/20 01:41 PM
1

This has been posted before, and I still think it's bullshit. If he was a trained service dog, he wouldn't be distracted. It's that simple.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/09/20 01:35 PM
1

Not sure why this needed to be a youtube video instead of a post.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/08/20 01:32 AM
7

That's not a cuck. That's an idiot.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/08/20 01:13 AM
201

"I'm black I can't be racist"
/r/PussyPassDenied17/08/20 01:05 AM
1

It's why the cunt in the video harassed him, Adolf. No it's not, Stalin. Gosh, your acumen improves by the second. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Pretend stuff for which there's no evidence? Desperately woke edge-lord cunt confirmed. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/20 12:08 PM
1

Your straw man is a bit short of stuffing there, pinhead. Extrapolating the outcome of your conclusion based on your ignorant and daft whataboutism to illustrate how you haven't given any thought and are just replying to argue is a strawman, now? Comedy gold. But hey, throw insults too - you're doing really well. I made no such claim. Actually, you did. 'I've lived in apartments' means precisely fuck all in response to my original point. You don't have to know people to mind your own fucking bus…
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/20 12:00 PM
1

Righto, so you've always known all of your neighbours everywhere you've lived. Douchebag. Meanwhile, the rest of the world....
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/20 09:03 AM
1

And she knows that....how? I mean, it's almost like anyone that's actually lived in apartments is already aware of this, on top of the signs a lot of them have telling tennants to not let anyone in that can't account for themselves or give details. I guess they're all just dumbasses as well and just didn't ask you.
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/20 04:01 PM
1

So...next time I want to burglarise an apartment I can insist on walking in when someone has the door open without giving any details or providing any evidence that I have anything to do with the place, and if they object I can just shove them out of the way. Good to know!
/r/PussyPassDenied10/03/20 03:07 PM
1

Got a web page that basically reads; "We don't want to pay a web designer a trifling amount to add a cookies warning, or the agreement we signed with our advertisers wasn't written professionally enough to include it - either way, our web page is unavailable to EU countries"
/r/PussyPassDenied30/01/20 02:29 PM
2

Pants onna ground
/r/PussyPassDenied06/01/20 03:27 PM
5

Even if we ignore that because 'violent because of words' isn't really an excuse, someone spitting in your face does to tend to provoke.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/10/19 10:47 AM
1

Title removes essential context.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/10/19 10:44 AM
3

No, Yahoo, I don't care if you're 'part of Verizon' - you need to offer me an accept/ reject cookies popup (not bury the options under multiple screens/ pages), or I won't bother visiting your site. I'll find this news someplace else.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/10/19 10:41 AM
0

You clearly projecting your expectations of such a post on what I'm saying. Actually, I'm going by what you said in your post (EDIT: and I don't see anything in your subsequent reply to suggest I was incorrect). Did I EVER say anything about contracts? You talked about consent about videotaping. How's that going to work in the actual moment? Do you all stop and say 'right, here's what's allowed and what isn't allowed...' and so on? How many of these situations have you ever been in that involved…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/19 02:25 PM
7

I was waiting for the whataboutism post. They are assholes since some of the group started videotaping the gangbang without her consent. They need to pay for this. Considering that may well have been what helped exonerate them, this is a bit of a daft statement. All of them together are assholes for having sex without setting CLEAR limits beforehand. Yes, because all people do this, sign contracts etc. before anything like that happens. The fact that you're equating videotaping a sexual act (it'…
/r/PussyPassDenied29/07/19 12:56 PM
8

I used to count those just to gage when I was gonna get yelled at
/r/MGTOW26/07/19 11:48 AM
1

Wow, now we're already down to cherry-picking. Gosh, you're really good at this. Why did that comment make my account less anonymous? How anonymous your account is doesn't really make much difference. Anyone in the world reading now knows this so-very-brave/ asshole side of you - and that's before you started boasting about it. You didn’t know who I was before I said it. Didn't know before, don't care now. Not sure what difference that makes. You've got a separate account specifically to be an a…
/r/PussyPassDenied20/06/19 08:23 AM
2

This account is faceless. What difference does that make? Nobody knows who I am Well, they do now. and as such I am allowed to act however the fuck I want. Yeah, that really seems to be working out for you. I don’t act like this when I’m around people who know me. And if they saw how you act online, that would make no difference, right? Bitch. Try an insult that bothers people who live outside your country. Go on. Dance some more.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/19 11:52 PM
2

Are you really incapable of fathoming that someone might possibly act like a cockwomble online because they are one? FTFY
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/19 11:47 PM
1

This site gives you yes or no options for cookies, but the only button that actually works is 'submit'.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/06/19 11:37 PM
2

This is great :-)
/r/PussyPassDenied10/06/19 03:21 PM
1

One thing Heard might have going for her is the fact that Warner Bros. appears to be open to giving directors and actors second chances. After Disney fired James Gunn for his numerous tweets about pedophilia, the studio offered him the opportunity to both write and direct an upcoming Suicide Squad movie. Not only that, but Heard already had an arrest on her record from 2009 where she physically assaulted Tasya van Ree at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The charges were dismissed after …
/r/PussyPassDenied20/03/19 06:51 PM
7

This was on reddit LOL - this clip is a very old repost. They even did a crowdfund and got him new gear. It was around the time of Epic Beard Man.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/19 02:56 PM
1

I usually prefer the collars and cuffs to match
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/19 02:52 PM
22

It was - it's on the front page of this sub - but don't sweat it, your link goes straight to the beef, so to speak :-)
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/19 02:45 PM
122

I'd usually complain that this has already been posted - but seeing a version without the aussie news-sheila is much easier to deal with.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/03/19 02:40 PM
2

Note how they haven't interviewed Peterson again, after he exposed so much of their obvious agenda last time.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/02/19 11:21 AM
19

'This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.' I'm an Englishman, watching this on a laptop in the UK, paying the license fee that partly funds your content, you spunktrumpets.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/01/19 04:04 PM
1

Full clip was posted six days ago in this sub, and is still on the first page
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/18 09:47 PM
1

Article dated October 2017
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/18 09:45 PM
1

Indeed, 'braying' is definitely the right word here
/r/PussyPassDenied19/09/18 08:27 AM
2

At least you didn't say 50 cent. That would have set him off even more
/r/PussyPassDenied10/09/18 02:29 PM
3

"Yor lewesen yor jobs, Aa got't on vidyooo"
/r/PussyPassDenied10/09/18 02:27 PM
3

Two female friends have posted this since yesterday. I did a bit of digging, and the 'increase of 38%' translates to 190 women - that's from a UK population of 60 million - so to me, it's being a bit disingenuous to say 'women' want England to win - that suggests (to me) that all women are under some kind of threat of violence. I'm sure if I posted some kind of tar-brushing statement about all women based on the actions of a tiny minority, there would be feathers spat - so what's a polite way I …
/r/MensRights17/06/18 11:46 AM
2

I call it 'sitting like a Ballet Dancer'. Usually out loud, on packed commuter trains, when there isn't enough room.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/05/18 02:28 PM
2

Don't forget the idiot filming - seems more interested in showing off over the outrage than actually helping anyone with anything
/r/PussyPassDenied09/05/18 02:15 PM
1

You mean mentioning both sexes when talking about rape affecting only one of those sexes. Not sure about that - the (incorrect) assumption is usually 'it only happens to women' - this was stating that 'it happens to women, but it happens to men too'; I would have thought that stood as an affirmation that the reader is not to feel stupid, or like they're making a fuss about nothing, etc. You may as well complain about statements like 'most drivers don't have accidents, but if you do....' because …
/r/MensRights29/06/12 09:21 AM
1

I see you telling me my reasoning is incorrect, but not you offering your own reasoning. Are you talking about this? I'm suggesting that there isn't one (and only one) way of reading that info. If you read it like a victim seeking confirmation, then it could be construed as being insulting if you're looking to be offended. But that doesn't make it the only option. Because that doesn't explain why it talks about men raping women. Why not mention both sexes when talking about rape? Why does mentio…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 03:07 PM
1

You didn't answer my question. Yes, I did. Your not agreeing isn't the same thing. Why not "men and boys are often sexually assaulted" instead of "most perpetrators of sexual violence are men targeting women but we acknowledge sometimes it's the other way around"? Because you're listing your interpretation in the 'instead of' part, rather than the original text, which didn't add (or phrase) the male part as an addendum or afterthought - it was the conclusion of a sentence. What is the gain from …
/r/MensRights28/06/12 01:32 PM
1

If a man was worried that his rape wouldn't be taken seriously because 'it doesn't happen to men', this page is/ was specifically stating that it does indeed happen to men, and gives/ gave some context addressing that very concern. This was then transformed into a perceived attack on men, simply because one person (or more, apparently) is a little bit sensitive to any other sex being mentioned - and so asserts that everyone else should be too. You yourself even pointed the context out (society, …
/r/MensRights28/06/12 12:22 PM
1

The page read 'rape most commonly happens to women, but can happen to men too - if this is you, do X' -so you're right, the emphasis is entirely yours, as well as the OP's - and reads as if you're so desperate to be the victim that you're not seeing the wood for the trees. Mentioning that both sexes get raped does not automatically translate into 'you are shit'. Fortunately, I'm out of this sub now - not really keen on wading through pages of editorialised titles based on blatantly one-sided int…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 11:56 AM
1

"We all have it coming, kid"
/r/MensRights27/06/12 03:57 PM
-14

because even after being raped a man needs to be reminded how 'privileged' the rest of his gender is. Sorry, didn't get that impression at all. OP is editorialising. EDIT: With this much editorialising and bias going on, and the mods openly defensive (and complicit), I think that's enough r/MR for me. Being this one-sided and refusing to see past anything other than purely males-as-victims orientated opinions (like the OP's title) is an excellent example of how easy it is to be just as extreme a…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 02:40 PM
1

Police were sent to Park's Campbell Avenue apartment earlier in the day because she tried to commit suicide, police said. ....there must be more to it than this. I've never heard of police being called to an attempted suicide and then just leaving when there's a child involved.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 02:36 PM
2

My Wife introduced me to romance. I introduced her to porn. It goes both ways - a lack of one means an enforced lack of the other, and so neither gets to insist that 'their' vision is correct.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 11:18 AM
1

No, most of them appeared beforehand. When people downvote questions or the obvious without explanation, you can't throw accusations of 'explaining away' when there has been no response at all - that's why it's called a circle-jerk/ hivemind/ etc. - and (I think) r/MR is supposed to win people round, not circle-jerk and downvote anyone that makes inconvenient (and unanswered) points. I thought that was the sort of behaviour that we all (rightly) lambasted SRS for...
/r/MensRights11/06/12 12:55 PM
1

I meant militant as in refusing to accept or even acknowledge that making these sort of assertions makes us look (to an outsider) that we're so desperately keen on being PC that we hijack reports of civilian deaths to complain that men weren't mentioned (despite the reader being quite able to work it out - it isn't as if there's a third gender to create confusion). It's pathetic, really. I can only hope the downvotes for my original comment were from trolls, because otherwise if this attitude is…
/r/MensRights11/06/12 10:05 AM
1

That doesn't change the point that this is still a minority occurrence, rather than being the norm - otherwise we're into blanket-coating 'all men are rapists' territory.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 10:00 AM
-2

Maybe so, but these are exceptions rather than the rule, no?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 12:43 PM
-10

Until women and children are fighting on the front lines, civilian deaths will always rank highest in shock value - and even then, male civilians could be part of a militia or similar. As a result, not sure how this is MR-related. EDIT: And that reaction doesn't make us look militant, easily-ignored and a circlejerk at all, right?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 11:39 AM
2

My....GOD! You're the first to correctly work out my username! Have some reddit gold :-)
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:53 PM
2

Can't have been, she won't let me touch her beers
/r/MensRights06/06/12 02:21 PM
1

My five year old Daughter insisted we download and watch this. It's so girly I practically grew breasts while watching it.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 12:13 PM
1

If I saw this on the front page, I'd use it as a cue to go do something non-reddit.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 11:41 AM
3

And yet you never see maternity clinics putting up posters of vaginas with 'YOU hold the power to stop overpopulation!'. Odd, that.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:44 AM
6

You don't. That's not why you get married. Why do you need a piece of paper saying you're American?
/r/MensRights25/05/12 01:53 PM
1

When they do - the Daily Mail is there. When they don't - the Daily Mail will do it for them anyway. Not sure why this is in MRA.
/r/MensRights25/05/12 09:06 AM
5

With lines like; My parents choose to help with the baby. I don't make them. He's really saying that he refuses to accept his responsibilities, and actually seems to resent his parents for doing it on his behalf - with a chaser of assuming that acknowledging that he's rubbish somehow makes up for this.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:08 PM
1

Maybe in America. Not sure that holds to the same level for the rest of the world.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 03:52 PM
1

Why? What difference does that make? You could demonstrate how women could raid and pillage. Mass rape? Examples, please.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:33 PM
1

The part where I get stuck is where you claim only men employ rape as a dominating tactic Considering I used phrases such as 'used as a weapon by men in a way that is non-existent when applied to females', and stated that 'women can rape', then I'm not sure where you got that from. Until you can give examples of the female equivalent (as in mass rape as a weapon), it's not a claim, either :-)
/r/MensRights21/05/12 03:05 PM
1

I'm unaware of any militia that's made up solely or primarily of females. Certainly not now Gadaffi's gone. But you're missing/ ignoring the point - even if there were, this wouldn't happen, and so....Bang; there goes any attempt to infer that rape can be gender-invisible.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 02:31 PM
1

I don't give a fuck about the gender - but I don't understand why more isn't said about seeing parents on the front lines. Once you've had a child, that's your first responsibility. First. Whatever words you said to a flag, sergeant etc. are irrelevant. Worthless, in fact. A promise from yesterday, when you were alone. Your primary task is looking at you, gurgling, and needs a nappy change. Any excuse you use to leave this task (or to leave your partner to this task) for more than 24 hours at a …
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:37 PM
2

Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer. Translation; If it wasn't for porn, I wouldn't have to work for what I'd previously thought was an automatic right requiring minimal or no effort. To be honest, though, this isn't a revelation for many people - and to repost is to suggest that it is, giving them an excuse - so I'm not sure why it's being reposted three years later.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:28 PM
1

Why? Female militia, female freedom fighters - the point remains; rape is used as a weapon by men in a way that is non-existent when applied to females. But hey, that might demonstrate how the sexes are different, and we can't have that, right? If we're going to pretend there's no difference between genders (as so many seem to want to insist on doing, to what ultimate benefit I still haven't worked out other than playing the victim), how is this issue to be addressed? Not by downvoting comments,…
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:49 AM
-4

She does have kind of a point - when armies invade villages/ towns, you don't see squadrons of female troops raping the men. Just because women can rape, don't use the PC banner to ignore the differences. However I'm fascinated with that link to a picture that describes penetrative rape as being equally committed by men & women - can anyone give a link to a proper site for this? EDIT: So, no links then. Remember Orwell's book that wanted to eradicate the orgasm? Change that word to 'gender', and…
/r/MensRights18/05/12 05:53 PM
1

This isn't misandrist, unless taken out of context (which is what you're doing). She was basically saying, 'don't go there' in a witty way, in the same style as 'keep it zipped' or 'keep it in your pants'. Sorry, but it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to be offended.
/r/MensRights18/05/12 03:02 PM
3

Slut-shaming isn't a term I've ever heard in the UK - but I've seen the process happen. Strange thing is, slut is a word I'd take to mean a girl with a lot of practice - that I will benefit from. Therefore, I guess that makes me a slut-seeker :-)
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:55 PM
2

This is what I don't understand - if you're a guy trapped in a girls body...why do you need advice on how a guy thinks?
/r/MensRights18/05/12 02:48 PM
2

Serena Williams being a perfect representation of the female form, of course, and in no way resembles a Street Fighter character in terms of physique
/r/MensRights15/05/12 11:59 AM
7

Blood Diamond. Watch that movie together, then you have a cast-iron argument for never buying any diamonds again, anywhere, ever :-)
/r/MensRights14/05/12 01:51 PM
3

How dare I let cherry picked material from this subreddit speak for itself! FTFY
/r/MensRights10/05/12 03:57 PM
1

I said bitch on Battlefield 3 online the other night - and got warned for 'swearing'. In other news, nobody outside the USA (to my knowledge) appears to consider 'bitch' a particularly harsh swearword. It wasn't that long ago that Phil Collins was told to swear on Miami Vice and found this out - but they let him use 'wanker', which is worse. I've got a growing feeling that America might just be unaware that the rest of the world isn't the same as them, and isn't interested in emulating them eith…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:10 PM
5

Because normally, you don't count 3, 13 or 30 comments as representative of everyone (or anyone). If you do, you're then labelling everyone in a sub based on a few people's comments, which means a) your opinion will get ignored, and/ or b) you're simply looking for confirmation, not information. The comment in question has 3 upvotes - so what? Does that represent /MR in it's entirety? And tbh, what if OneY is filled with feminist scumbags? There will always be comments from idiots in every sub, …
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:58 AM
3

I can still remember the shock of finding out just how many Americans did this for no reason thirty years ago. Up to this point, I'd thought the USA was some sort of role model in all things (hey, I was 12). This was compounded at a later stage by an episode of Sex and the City which actually left me shocked, for all the wrong reasons - one of the girls was 'confronted' by a normal penis (note that I don't say 'uncut' because that's not what normal means), and it took the rest of the show for th…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:51 AM
2

So, when are you going to cut off your ears? I mean, they get dirty don't they?
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:45 AM
31

If it only takes one person's comment, you're not looking for justification, you're looking for an excuse.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:40 AM
2

Always liked the idea of this, especially since the Wife was more than clever enough to bring in the $. However, the Wife (to be, at the time) decided to be a nurse. I'd worked at a hospital for ten years, so I knew what that would mean financially and warned her about this, but my warnings fell on deaf ears. This led to my having to explain that if she wasn't prepared to bring in the $, meaning that the responsibility for doing so would be mine alone, then she wasn't going to get an equal say i…
/r/MensRights09/05/12 10:28 AM
2

TIL that being woken up with a blowjob is a fetish :-)
/r/MensRights04/05/12 09:35 AM
1

Ah, the old 'voices told me to do it' trick. Not that the condition doesn't exist, but why is it that you never hear of anyone, even anecdotally, hearing voices that say 'go help the homeless', 'why not raise some money for charity' or 'get a new job', or something like that? You only ever hear of this from any source when someone is trying to avoid blame. It's up there with the suspicious lack of psychic bank-robbers. But in any case, the article doesn't say anything of the kind that the title …
/r/MensRights02/05/12 12:21 PM
1

Considering it's so easy, not sure why you need a special post to do so
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:23 AM
1

...if you're a student at Florida or South Carolina.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:21 AM
-4

My daughter has insisted that I watch MLP with her - can't get out of it because we watch Star Wars with my son (and he likes MLP too). Which is all well and good, but it's so girly I practically grew breasts watching it.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 10:18 AM
1

Nope, just illustrating how flaky your assertions are. trying to defend the dishonest western feminist tactic of claiming that x in the east means women are being oppressed in the west For the second time, nobody has mentioned this in the context you describe apart from you. And the OP didn't say 'western society', 'american society' or anything else, so stop agenda-hijacking and insisting that any comments follow yours. And yet again, you use your own assumptions as a defence. EOD.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:51 PM
1

Ah, so when your justifications are as leaky as my garage roof, then it's OK - but when I highlight this, it's a strawman. Go look up strawman - giving a single ignorant statement does not mean you can accuse people of strawman arguments when they answer using only the information you've provided. Dishonest? You mean as is asserting that comments about other countries are irrelevant because 'society' must mean yours, then falling back on 'well the OP didn't say not to?'. Logical - it's not 'logi…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:48 PM
1

There was never a request on the part of the OP for us conflate other societies with western societies. And there wasn't a specific dication not to - apart from by you. That's just what various people here did after they failed to produce evidence of women being discriminated against in society. No, that's the justification you used to attack them - one of several that could be either terribly ignorant or trolling, but are ultimately unhelpful. You're doing a better job of revealing your issues …
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:41 PM
1

Someone discovers a treatment that saves women from a nasty cancer that's even more effective if offered at an earlier age - but hey! Let's squash it 'because women are already privileged health and longevity wise'. Do list in the wiki where this treatment was created due to a 'save the women first' mentality. Based on your comments just in this thread, you should really start a 'militant mens rights subreddit. In fact, based on your comments about Islam, other countries and rich white feminists…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:32 PM
1

I'm not alleging anything - merely pointing out that you're addressing all replies as they relate to one society instead of generally, which is a bit lame considering it's fairly easy to give universal examples, and that's before we get into the 'us vs. them' mentality. Im not interested in feminists in the west pretending that they face discrimination by co-opting the suffering of others Which, again, is a specific subsection of the gender and an issue you introduced instead of being stated in …
/r/MensRights01/05/12 02:21 PM
1

Errr....who was putting that argument forward? Not me, not the OP, and not the person you responded to (and you might want to revise your comment to that person about Islam oppressing everyone somehow meaning women aren't more oppressed in its' name than men) The OP doesn't mention 'in the USA' anywhere, just women generally. You're using the argument you mentioned in reverse to ignore women in other countries.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:52 PM
1

Where did the question state that both genders were fighting some of the same things? I'd suggest each gender is fighting different forms of discrimination. For example, I never answer the door to a salesmen who then asks if my Wife is home and could he talk to her. As a result, it doesn't bother me - but it annoys the hell out of my Wife, and rightly so because each time it happens, she's made to feel like someone who just lives there instead of the (co)owner. A silly example, but there are man…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:46 PM
1

Im not saying that no stereotyping exists. No, you're smothering most suggestions with complaints about how men in one country (which I assume is yours) have it worse. The qeustion was 'state some stereotypes that are against women', not 'can we list how easy women have it in comparison to men'.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:34 PM
1

I'd suggest it is, and your subsequent comment reinforces it. You're using a single subsection of a gender ('rich white feminists') to ignore what happens to the others. A feminist could then be justified in stating that men have it easy, because rich men in the USA can do (or buy) anything they like.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:32 PM
1

They have, but you're using excuses like 'oh, that's not in the west'. The point of the question (if it's to be of any use) is to list what stereotypes they have to deal with, not how they're all-powerful and men are the forgotten pressed-upon masses as if women don't have to deal with any stereotyping, anywhere.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:19 PM
1

But any medical practitioner worth their salt will tell you not to.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:16 PM
0

You could say that about wearing seatbelts. Draw a line somewhere. EDIT: Hahahah a downvote? Say hi to Darwin for me. With that attitude, you'll be seeing him sooner than I will :-)
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:16 PM
1

...arguable, but in any case you're still ignoring his question in favour of your own agenda.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:12 PM
1

Not a new problem - I try my best To be just like I am But everybody wants you To be just like them
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:09 PM
1

Men do not that that right Not true. Men have 100% control over their own bodies - what you're talking about is what happens after they've left a bit in the opposite genders', which isn't what he said. And generally, you're taking examples of men having less options/ a worse time than women as some sort of reply, which wasn't the stated question. TL, DR; Less of the 'we' please - I consider myself pro-MRA, but not the exclusion of others based on gender. What you're doing (on this page, at least…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:07 PM
1

Very odd - I generally take all comments as gender-neutral; it doesn't usually occur to me to even consider if the poster is male or female (I'll notice via the content being gender-related)...maybe because usernames can't be trusted generally anyway; someone might come on as Rachel555 but is actually a guy who's a big Blade Runner fan. I now feel deflated that this approach might not be as common as I thought. However, could there be an element of that kind of thing at play here? People attacki…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 11:57 AM
1

I call it the 'Jack Ryan Effect' - as in, the world is shades of grey but if you put on your hero hat, you can force it to be black and white and everything will be OK. Supposedly :-)
/r/MensRights23/04/12 09:02 AM
0

Love the way so many downvote this as if it couldn't possibly happen in real life and therefore doesn't have to be considered - certainly no-one has addressed this issue in in this thread directly. Which is exactly the blinkered-logic that brought in the anonymity for accusers in the first place. Well done, all of you!
/r/MensRights20/04/12 11:39 AM
0

So...if a trial decides that a man didn't rape a woman, what's the assumption? That she was merely mistaken? Nobody is acknowledging what will happen if a lawyer decides to paint the accuser as a liar as a form of defence, and what will happen if the accuser then loses.
/r/MensRights20/04/12 11:26 AM
1

On the flip side she emphasises that the 'right one' is a myth She can emphasise all she likes - she's still wrong.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 12:23 PM
1

It's not unclear. I'm not contesting anything. I'm just illustrating that you don't want babies ever right now. You might not want one in five or ten years, either. You might meet someone that completely changes your mind - or you might not. But unless you already know in advance how your life is going to progress for the rest of your life, why reduce your options because of what you were so sure about in your youth? Because you appear to be making plans based solely on what you want, ignoring a…
/r/MensRights17/04/12 10:15 AM
1

You don't want babies now
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:50 AM
1

That's not my overall experience...but then I don't think I've ever let votes stop me from calling out the obvious; aside from being an example from far too long ago, most of the rest of the world will have never heard of him.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:49 AM
1

You don't want babies now - I'd suggest it's not a good thing to reduce your future options based on what suits currently. I assume that by freezing, you're talking about future-babies via IVF, which opens a different can of worms; do you want natural selection to choose your fittest sperm, or assume that the one picked at random will do just as good a job?
/r/MensRights17/04/12 08:34 AM
1

Well, examples including celebrities are always applicable. But lose impact if they aren't current. Imagine creating an anti-rape drive for women, tomorrow, that used Desiree Washington as an example.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 02:36 PM
1

Trouble with those is, if your partner is killed in an accident (say), you're then left in the position of hoping that the op can be reversed if you meet anyone that then wants babies.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 01:32 PM
2

Every single post in the subreddit is by the same guy (at least, on the front page) - and the majority of the ones I looked at are SRS-level 'wooo look at what this one guy says and how it means all MRA's are baaaaaad!' and other feats of not-very-watertight logic that most have risen above before they leave school. I guess this is what ultimately happens when you just want everyone to agree with you without the need for justification or self control - set up your own sub, then you can congratul…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:51 AM
-3

Maybe if we want people to take domestic abuse by women more seriously, we can find an example more recent than thirteen years ago. EDIT: And with that response, we get to see how many people are voting based on Phil Hartman (who I had to look up) rather than any real concerns about domestic abuse.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:36 AM
8

I lived with three girls over the space of ten years - and thought that this meant that I really should live with whoever I married (if that ever happened) because I'd need to see how I 'got on' with her. Then I met the Wife through a holiday romance (supposedly a no-no), and we didn't live together until after we were married (not by design). We've now been together seventeen years - but when we got married, lots of friends let us know the divorce rate, etc - and my reply was 'that's everyone e…
/r/MensRights16/04/12 09:35 AM
1

As long as they're allowed to do more than just observe, I'm game
/r/MensRights12/04/12 11:59 AM
19

There are trolls that have a good name?
/r/MensRights12/04/12 09:53 AM
7

Maybe next time, someone won't.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 02:31 PM
1

Saw this on FB the other day, and I don't understand how it's supposed to work - the problem with it is that one of those women is wearing her clothes by choice; the other by religious dictation...and only one of them will face problems if she decides to wear something else.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 08:57 AM
1

Probably about the same as the ratio of pointless pap-shots of women that the Daily Mail uses to sell newspapers.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:12 PM
0

I'm still not really clear on why treating both sexes as identical (instead of equal, which isn't the same thing) is benficial in any way. It certainly seems to lead to multiple posts expressing shock, shock, that men/ women or boys/ girls actually behave differently in the same situation, as if this was something no-one ever anticipated. EDIT: Yeah, thought that would be the response instead of clarification. Always worth a try, though.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 08:54 AM
1

Thank you! I had girly-friends (who knew what I had been like beforehand) asking me 'how did you know? how did you really know?' when we got engaged. The best answer I could come up with was 'if you can think of a single reason, any reason at all, not to do it, then don't do it. If it's a reason you think you've already found a a way around in advance - then take that path now, and sort it out now - not once you're married'. It worked for me, at any rate :-) I guess one way I had of ensuring suc…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 10:41 AM
1

That's sort of my point - can you find any other examples of a woman saying 'she just wanted to get her stuff' to the police and their breaking into her house for her and shooting him immediately? It's 'good to know' that we apparently now rely on defence lawyers words as gospel, and even if the witnesses statements don't match then never mind - it must be the evil Po-lice.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 10:22 AM
1

If I called the police to break down my front door because 'I wanted to get my stuff', it would be classed as a domestic and I'd be lucky not to be prosecuted for wasting police time. Since police generally need more than a 'can I get in?' to charge into the house and shoot people, the question then is 'what information is missing?'. For example, If we're going to suggest that the police were just looking for an excuse to shoot someone today, why didn't they go for an easier call/ target? It mig…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 10:17 AM
-4

The lawyer is now trying to blow this up into a bigger issue. Why would he be doing that? The call to the operator doesn't sound like a 'what a silly goose I am, would you mind coming and letting me into my house?'. Would you call 911 for that reason at any time? What was she screaming about outside? Why did the guy throw her out of the house? Was the whole row about his not driving home from a strip bar, as suggested? If the brother and a friend were there, why not go with them until the BF had…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:31 PM
1

Laughable article. You may as well print an article about the Apollo 1 disaster and hand-wring about how we've obviously learned nothing in the following 30 years. But then, this is the Daily Mail, making the comments not-very-surprising. You may as well go ask a female traveller to read something aloud, and just record the response when she fails.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:11 PM
5

My friend, please. I implore you to reconsider. You can be just as virtuous and good as I if you do. Would you not like to be right instead of wrong? Please advocate for what is right instead of what is wrong.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:08 PM
5

Hehehe, not so sure about 'today' - this was in 1985 :-)
/r/MensRights27/03/12 11:04 AM
3

Love the way you get downvoted for not automatically agreeing with the herd. Been married fifteen years, easily one of my better decisions - and that's coming from a guy who was the kind that needed to stick it into every woman; I just ran into one that made all the others look like starter-models, so we put off kids for ten years in order to have fun - not sure why others think that it's only for having kids; when we married, we weren't sure we were ever going to have kids. That said, each case…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 09:32 AM
13

We were told at school that girls 'matured' faster than boys. Being me, I put my hand up and asked why, if that was the case, more teenage girls smoked than boys? I got a detention.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 09:22 AM
3

Most of your statements are self-perpetuation justifications. That's not a criticism, though - it works for you right now; you simply haven't met anyone that affects you enough to want to change anything, and that's the key. It's when you go from 'well, any partner will just have to adapt to me' to 'wow, she's fantastic and not only have I not had to adapt anything, she makes me want to change X, Y or Z about myself!' that you're on the path, so to speak. And generally, the things you find yours…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 11:24 AM
13

Ducks also indulge in Gang Rape, making their opinions suspect anyway
/r/MensRights26/03/12 10:34 AM
1

Well, how badly do you want your side to win?
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:13 PM
1

...same applies to God. And the devil, for that matter.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:11 PM
6

A young person
/r/MensRights22/03/12 11:55 AM
1

Posting a child-support check and telling people you're planning on spending it on a new pair of shoes instead of your child(ren) is, in my book. = lynch mob mentality. How you justify it to yourself is irrelvant. then I don't know what to say nor do I really care to be completely honest. But you're still here. You've already demonstrated that you're not really interested in truth. Careful with that pitchfork. Oh no, we're such horrible people! Yes, actually you are if you think that copying 4ch…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 10:51 AM
1

Well, evidence certainly points to it. This isn't evidence. Without any context, I could use people shouting 'faggot' as raging homophobia, until it's shown that this was in a game of Battlefield 3 by twelve year olds. Faced with that last part, would you still be raging about DOING NOTHING? Or is that irrelevant too when there's a vigilante brigade to organise? And even if it isn't, so what? What exactly are we doing here that's going to some 'extreme' ends? Notifying the police, based on nothi…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 10:03 AM
1

But what you're saying, in the context of this thread, is that teen boys should be legally allowed to make sexual decisions and girls should not. I'd have put it like that if that was what I meant.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 09:28 AM
1

potentially HELPING a fellow man in need. Indeed. And you know that's the case here, yes? ACTION is more important than words. Lynch-mob excuse. Changes nothing (apart from making r/MR look like a lynch mob).
/r/MensRights19/03/12 11:13 AM
1

Tried it (questioning the missing elements of the story), got downvoted. The question now is whether I was downvoted by trolls or not.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:43 AM
1

Maybe if someone found something with a little more evidence than an FB exchange with no context or background, you might find people more accepting. We're almost at the stage where I could quote The Addams Family and get arrested because someone on 4chan hadn't seen it and assumed I'm going to dig up my relatives.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:41 AM
2

Don't pretend that running your own kangeroo-court based on an FB exchange with no context counts as doing anything and is in any way 'what this movement needs'.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:31 AM
1

If we're going to ignore the myriad of possible contexts in order to lynch her based on an FB exchange, you have to allow the speculation that's being used as 'proof' to go both ways
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:28 AM
1

Nice job justifying the use of a child's money to buy shoes. Which you haven't actually shown to be the case. Anywhere. Your entire argument is based on an assumption.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:10 AM
1

The problem with bringing it to someone's attention is that it's still subject to context. You could tape me quoting Reservoir Dogs and then use that as evidence that I was involved in a robbery - and to parallel what's happened here, if you (or more accurately, 4chan) did it anyway, then you'd be less likely to be listened to next time. That's why this sort of thing is, to my mind, unproductive at best.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:05 AM
1

There's evidence of murder, torture and so on if I quote the Addams Family - that's what happens if you ignore context.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:57 AM
1

No, I'm saying that they make different judgement calls than girls do, and treating both identically ignores this.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:55 AM
1

I wasn't looking at it from an 'X can't do this, but Y can' perspective. One may be better at certain tasks, but that doesn't mean those tasks are impossible and should be denied for the other. There's a difference between acknowledging gender and dictating based upon it - and (in this thread) we're talking about children, wherein certain areas the differences are amplified.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:54 AM
1

And that statement will make all the difference. Well done for being part of the problem.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:35 AM
1

Do you even know what 'mob mentality' is?
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:32 AM
1

I was talking about acknowledging, not reductionism. I don't see acknowledging gender as a prejudice. Because (to my mind) the goal should be equality, not some sort of androgyny in order to apply the same rules to each (= identical). To do the latter, you have to ignore mutiple factors for each.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 09:29 AM
0

No one's said "who cares about facts" The lack of evidence would suggest otherwise. We've said "Look, here's some evidence." No, you've said 'look, here's an FB conversation'. There are many other factors involved before it becomes evidence. And you decided to make justifications WITHOUT evidence to contradict it. So....you don't provide any evidence in order to rage about an FB conversation, and yet when I point this out you're then complaining that I don't have evidence to the contrary?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:45 PM
0

It's as good of evidence as a tape recording of you planning to commit a crime. And is worthless until you commit the crime. That's the point. Otherwise you'd better start prosecuting all the kids that say 'faggot' online for homophobia/ hate crime.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:40 PM
0

Officer! Arrest that man!
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:38 PM
1

There is evidence. Hardly, otherwise you'd have to prosecute every kid that says 'faggot' on FB for homophobia. you would go to the police and show them my Facebook status as evidence, right And their next question would be 'well, did he assault you?'. In the same sense, "I am going to use my child support money to buy new shoes" deserves to be looked at with the same scrutiny. Only when you're looking for an excuse. I've already listed four or five reasons she could be having this conversation,…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:36 PM
1

And there isn't evidence for the supposed contradictions you bring up. So I need evidence before I'm allowed to contradict the lack of? Righto. We DO have evidence of her misusing the child support. If you're referring to the FB screen cap, no you don't. But in this case, as far as I know, they're simply notifying the authorities and the father. This is a problem in itself - notifying them of what? That the female is having a speculative conversation on FB? And what happens if she was doing it p…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:28 PM
9

That's interesting - I always thought of true equality as acknowledging the differences between the sexes, and identical to mean 'everyone gets the same treatment regardless'.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:24 PM
-2

No no you're doing it wrong - you have to create an FB conversation, then...actually, that's it. It's all the rage, apparently.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:18 PM
0

it's okay for that woman to neglect her child for shoes? Considering I didn't say that, and that there isn't any actual evidence for her doing so anywhere, I think I'll stick to regular logic instead of yours, thanks.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:09 PM
7

Why is treating boys and girls as identical (instead of equal) a good thing? Why is acknowledging gender so bad?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:06 PM
-1

You should stop editing your posts to complain about being downvoted, If anyone actually provided evidence instead of carrying on with their agenda, I wouldn't have to. it makes you look silly. With replies like 'Evidence isn't needed in this case', you'll understand if I disagree. The fact that you're suggesting this sort of thing to me instead of pointing out the leaps of logic being made by others speaks volumes in itself. There are always a few people in every subreddit will downvote perfect…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:49 PM
-2

No one is saying she has committed a crime by thinking or posting on facebook. Really? they're using a single, speculative and possible humorous conversation between her and a friend as all the evidence that's required. That's called 'mob justice', and doesn't make MR look very clever. They're saying it's evidence towards her being immoral On it's own, it's not evidence in any form. When people in other countries use flimsy evidence to punish their women for being 'immoral', well I guess that's …
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:16 PM
-8

If you or I were the father, we may have been beating her up. We may have never paid anything for years. We may have been in prison. There are any number of mitigating factors, which is why going on a single FB conversation (or relying on 4chan) is, to my mind, dangerous. EDIT: The pitchforks are over there.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:11 PM
0

If the child is going without so that mommy can buy expensive clothes and shoes on daddy's dime, however... Of which there is currently zero evidence of. A possibly humorous, speculative exchange on FB doesn't count. I'm all in favour of going after genuine cases - but so far, this isn't one of them.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:03 PM
-12

It establishes nothing. Zero. Nada. Your entire reply is based on assuming a speculative conversation is the same as real events, with no background information or context. Unless prosecution for perceived thought-crime is allowed now, yes? As well as possible humour being ignored in favour of your own agenda? And your reply doesn't address any of the points I raised, because in short the image alone doesn't provide enough info for us to leap to conviction and sentencing. EDIT: Without any furth…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 02:53 PM
18

Again, how does the image show that this has actually happened? Are there other images that aren't, in short, speculation about how she might spend the money? How do we know she isn't doing this to annoy her ex? How do we know she isn't doing this to 'impress' friends? How do we know she hasn't already spent thousands herself, considering this is her first cheque? I'm all for castigating low-life leeches, but this image alone isn't enough to establish that. EDIT: And still people would rather li…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 02:47 PM
1

they're speculating on what what could be done with the money, not how it was spent... future tense, not past - although I haven't seen the 4chan stuff.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 02:42 PM
14

How does the image show that this has happened? EDIT: Asked this already, and got downvoted to the bottom of the page. And yet you all wonder where the other subreddits get their anti-MR ammo from...
/r/MensRights16/03/12 02:41 PM
-10

Title is misleading - they're speculating on what what could be done with the money, not how it was spent... ...ultimately, how do we know this isn't tongue-in-cheek humour? EDIT: Oh dear. Go on, ask me who's side I'm on.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:52 PM
1

Doesn't appear to be able to seperate 'increases likelihood' from 'will be used to assign blame'
/r/MensRights16/03/12 11:01 AM
0

Is there a word that carries the same history for white people? Jew?
/r/MensRights15/03/12 12:52 PM
0

Oh indeed, I fully agree - what's galling is the lack of awareness that doing stuff like that actually legitimises trolling
/r/MensRights15/03/12 09:45 AM
1

What many US redditors don't seem to realise is how redditors from the majority of the rest of the world laugh at how the US is quite happy to allow 17 year olds to join the army and kill people (etc.), but having sex? Why, they're just children!
/r/MensRights14/03/12 12:27 PM
1

He's 18, not 15
/r/MensRights14/03/12 12:20 PM
2

Indeed, I don't understand why anyone watches American Idol either
/r/MensRights14/03/12 12:19 PM
1

And yet on reddit, they give awards to comedy trolls. EDIT: Hahahaha oh, but that's different, right?
/r/MensRights14/03/12 12:16 PM
15

Maybe she means a Glasgow Kiss
/r/MensRights13/03/12 04:22 PM
1

When girls have started attacking me in the past, I've given them a clear 'act like an idiotic guy and you'd better be prepared to get treated like one' response. In every single case, they got the message and stopped/ didn't call my bluff. Thankfully.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 01:37 PM
1

Fighting sexism with sexism. Otherwise known as a 'parody'
/r/MensRights08/03/12 01:32 PM
1

Unfriend. I've had male 'associates' (= not really friends) who I've defriended because of "ALL WOMEN ARE SLAAAAGS" posts and the like; What's different here?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 01:28 PM
47

I suppose that’s one of the problems with labels – people always want to twist them to suit their own purposes. She says this to someone else - as if not comprehending the irony. What do you call someone that asserts that they speak for all feminists, and that any critic represent all MRA's? Reductionist? Or just dumb?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 11:57 AM
3

Maybe going along with anything asked of you purely to secure citizenship isn't such a good idea.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 11:07 AM
0

How much of the trans crowd are offended by this? Obviously I don't speak for anyone, but I've always considered tranny to be a regular, descriptive word instead of specifically a term of abuse. Just because some might use it like that (and there always will be some), that doesn't mean the rest of the population use it in the same way. As an example, if I put on a dress and take it off because I consider dresses 'girly', that doesn't mean I'm denigrating girls - if I put on something by Jean Pau…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 10:20 AM
2

This argument is not intelligent, and can be summarised as; "It was so much easier when we could individually dictate what men were allowed to see and do sexually. Now we have to at least partially work to their expectations instead of enforcing our own"
/r/MensRights02/03/12 04:03 PM
3

Yeah, that's The Sun/ NOTW for you. They also had a 'drive' against spousal abuse until the editor was arrested for assaulting her boyfriend. EDIT: The very same editor who apparently had no knowledge of the huge amount of phone-hacking and payoffs going on.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 01:42 PM
10

I thought /SRS hated everything.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:53 PM
1

I've hated Ron Paul since he stated that America was 'fast approaching' a Police State in 2002. He's used as the sole quote for the United States section of the wiki entry for 'Police State'. And I'm not even American. The sole evidence for this in that section? Compulsory vaccinations. That's right - people being too stupid to recognise that science will keep them alive is used as a sign of a Police State.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 12:51 PM
0

You mean the part I'm not sure about? Dickhead.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 09:16 AM
36

Note sure about the post overall - but I will, from now on, call my kids 'minions'.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 04:59 PM
1

I was having dinner with someone in a restaurant years ago when this fairly attractive girl with a large, obviously 'enhanced' chest appeared, standing at the table next to ours. She was obviously friends with the diners there, and proceeded, without sitting down, to spend at least ten minutes talking about her 'op' and how pleased she was with her new boobs. At least, it seemed to be at least ten minutes, because she was very loud - but by then, the waiter had arrived at the table and was waiti…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 03:40 PM
1

I can't remember the last time a girl was 'looked down on' by guys for enjoying sex - the actual number of partners being irrelevant. In fact, I'd be more suspicious of a girl that was still a virgin at, say, twenty - does she think she's going to have more than one life? I've heard more criticism about girl's sexual habits from females over the past twenty years than from males, but that doesn't automatically mean it's because of some feminist agenda.
/r/MensRights28/02/12 03:33 PM
1

I tend to class anyone ten years (or more) younger than me as 'veal'. It may taste nice, but it's really too young.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 03:31 PM
1

Yes, but it's probably not the sort of film you're after
/r/MensRights24/02/12 03:21 PM
0

How about encouraging everyone to be white-knights for both sexes?
/r/MensRights24/02/12 03:19 PM
5

My father only gave me a few bits of advice; Men are actually more frightened of ending up alone than women are. Take note - don't just keep the first one that comes along. Don't pretend or fake anything about yourself. That way if she's keen, she'll be keen on you, not what a good actor you are. Go to a pub, look at the ugly women, then have a few drinks and see what they look like now. Be warned. Never talk bad about a girl you've been with - it just makes you look bad. And stupid. Burning the…
/r/MensRights24/02/12 03:10 PM
2

Because after all, there couldn't possibly be any jobs between their location and 800 miles away...with bonus points for the email where she does her best to give the impression that you only have one course of action which has already been decided and that there's nothing you can do about it. Hang in there, dude.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 02:56 PM
4

In the US, one can legally join the army but still be legally considered a child.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 10:37 AM
1

It is about gender. This entire event is only relevant because it was a female being abused by a male. Not according to the title. I've been commenting from a point of equality, not 'look at how one-sided the treatment of women is' or 'aren't men treated badly' - hence my response to accusations of sexism. If a woman attacks someone, let's concentrate on making this unnacceptable, not comparing them to men as a yardstick. Men expect to be hit back if they attack someone else. Women don't. Which …
/r/MensRights17/02/12 10:15 AM
1

I can't provide you with a medical education. I'm aware of that. Sorry but there's a million better things I could be doing with my time. Yeah, A&E is calling :-)
/r/MensRights16/02/12 03:58 PM
1

Once you get a proper education come back and argue. Or maybe provide links instead of making blanket statements, anecdotal examples, guesses and assuming that insults will somehow count as 'proof' - oh, that's your job. But go on, call me 'son' or the like - you've nearly covered all the bases, all that's left for you to do is to get the labelling machine out again. This is like debating with a high schooler. Well, there's your first mistake in assuming this is a debate. A debate requires you t…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 03:53 PM
1

Did you not understand that you shouldn't be commenting without some basic knowledge in the sex differences between the integumentary system of a man and woman. You mean hair, nails and skin? What does that have to do with CB having his injuries documented if they were so bad? Doctors didn't order her to the hospital. No, and they didn't immediately dishcharge her with minor/ superficial injuries or for wasting their time, either. Doctors largely practice defensive medicine for fear of lawsuits.…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 10:34 AM
1

Indeed - I don't see how escalating a situation like this (or Rihanna/ CB's) generally helps anyone. It certainly hasn't helped CB.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:32 AM
0

Nobody would blink an eye if a small man started a fight with someone twice his size and got knocked out While there is an element of 'what did you expect', that doesn't mean the larger person has free reign. This isn't about size. You're just rationalizing your sexism. This isn't about gender. You're just justifying your agenda-hijacking; I've illustrated elsewhere the difference between how you can act in terms of equality and how your options are reduced if you're famous.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 09:30 AM
1

So absence of proof is proof of absence? The point was, if he was beaten too, where are the terrible injuries he sustained if you're going to question the point of the hospital in the first place. That's obvious. Thank you Doctor. Yep, and my face has looked worse before and most guys I know at some points. We don't go to hospitals unless there's broken bones or a need for sutures. An amazing diagnosis. You can take a beating, so everyone else can too. Marvellous logic. LOL. Ah, doctors, what do…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:48 PM
1

What does end up in the hospital mean? Were there hospital/ police photos of CB's injuries? Have you ever worked at a hospital? For ten years, but not medically. People 'end up' there all the time for things they don't need to be there for. You have seen the photos of her face, right? I would never say the person that came in with a scraped knee ended up in the hospital This is a bit more than a scraped knee. I would say they took themselves to the hospital where they wasted a ton of money for s…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 04:20 PM
1

Isn't that what you're saying there? I'm not sure; "I haven't seen any statements or comments from anyone involved saying differently" was a response to your suggestion that it might not have been an after-the-fact retaliatory beating. "I was illustrating how someone pushing you doesn't mean you automatically gain the right to push back twice as hard." was a clarification of the following statement that you quoted last; "but only in terms of equal retaliation, not 'right, you hit me so now I'm g…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:25 PM
1

That doesn't mean this was an after-the-fact retaliatory beating. I haven't seen any statements or comments from anyone involved saying differently. If she was attacking him with a weapon while he was driving, restraint might not have been his number one priority at that point. You mean restraint wasn't his number one priority, as was evidenced. And as I stated before; He could have dumped her on the side of the road and gone to hospital himself, he could have thrown her out of the car and given…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:09 PM
1

From the released pictures of her face, it didn't look like she got a massage - but I was illustrating how someone pushing you doesn't mean you automatically gain the right to push back twice as hard.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 01:52 PM
0

Absolutely - she could have gotten them both killed over 'texts from a girl', which says something about her, and as for the resulting fight I'm not entirely against the logic of 'if you want to act like a guy, don't complain when you get treated like one' - but only in terms of equal retaliation, not 'right, you hit me so now I'm going to destroy your face to teach you a lesson' type nonsense. however, I'm not a major recording star; once you're in the public eye, it's tabloid/ playground rules…
/r/MensRights15/02/12 01:16 PM
2

Stronger = more responsibility for how you use that, and more fallout if you fail. Your ex - did you go get a bigger knife and actually stab them to teach them a lesson? That's the gist of what happened with CB and Rihanna - she started hitting him, he beat her senseless.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 12:21 PM
1

Wow, that's an awfully big brush you're tarring them all with, there. For example - in other news, rest of planet still not bolstering knee-deep hate for all Americans over Iraq. And that's before we get to this not being a mens rights issue, unless you're suggesting that women are never framed by the police.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 10:53 AM
1

He didn't end up in hospital. EDIT: But someone apparently doesn't think this is in any way significant. Next week - How WW hates gays, because he didn't specifically mention gay-bashing either so that must mean...(etc.)
/r/MensRights15/02/12 10:46 AM
-2

I don't really get why some people are so keen on 'forgiving' CB. It's not like he's so fantastic that a musical genius will be lost forever if he never recovers, and there's a thousand more just like him ready to sing on exactly the same music. ....with the added bonus of not beating women - and yes, I said women, not 'people'. This is a recording artist we're talking about, not an equal rights advocate - and neither are the majority of people buying this sort of product. Two guys fight = wow, …
/r/MensRights15/02/12 10:44 AM
1

Indeed - I'm sure introducing him to newcomers as 'the guy that only pretended he was faking cancer" will be far less damaging :-)
/r/MensRights15/02/12 10:03 AM
3

Odd how online behaviour has come to mimic the worst aspects of tabloids - the problem being that the 'oh, that was yesterday' attitude of cancer-fakers and the like somehow acts as a shield is an assumption that comes back to bite. Just ask Piers Moron. Hell, ask James Murdoch.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 10:01 AM
11

He said he never accepted sexual favours as payment, but knew of many drivers who did. Speaking at his lawyer's office with his wife by his side today I'm seeing a connection here
/r/MensRights07/02/12 01:23 PM
1

TL, DR. You're not even attempting to understand what I'm talking about. For example; Considering how many statements you've misinterpreted, I'll have to live with that. How about naming one? When at least half of my previous post was correcting assumptions you'd made that you hadn't spotted because you were (I assume) so keen to use the labelling machine.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:56 PM
4

That's right. In order to conceive you, not produce the person you've turned out to be. EDIT: In short, how very dare you make your own decisions about money I as your offspring want to spend.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:48 PM
1

Irrelevant No, it isn't - I was illustrating how it is, indeed, blackmail. And a lot of kids don't need to worry about being "entitled" to have their parents pay for college. Irrelevant. Again, no it isn't. You're still apparently equating going to college and having it paid for by your parents as an automatic entitlement. What some people do of their own accord has no influence on what you can expect. So why get upset about your folks not paying for stuff? You can't insist that something should…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 02:17 PM
1

Agreed - maybe the original comments I replied to need further justification, but there are a number of legitimate reasons that parents might not want to pay. For example; your parents might choose not to help you through college because your grades were that bad up until that point. Plenty of 17-year olds will choose not to see it that way, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Also remember that college is an optional stage of your life - retirement/ old age is not.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:55 PM
2

How? Blackmail is threatening to deprive someone of something they're already entitled to for your own gain. That's correct. You don't get to redefine that simply because you're the offspring. Or are you already planning not to look after/ help look after your parents in their old age? Parents are not entitled to having their retirement paid for by their children. A lot of parents don't need to worry about what they're 'entitled' to from their kids. He's offering them something he's not required…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:36 PM
1

If your parents can afford to send you to college, that's a lucky break. It's not something you blackmail them over. Unless one of them has molested you or something, equating this with the 'option' of looking after them in their old age (and even treating that as an option in itself) is, to my mind, stunningly callous and materialistic.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:23 PM
1

I don't see how - they're both sides of the same point, I was replying to both. This is the part that shocked me the most - it's not a 'deal', it's blackmail. Oh, you can justify it with 'my folks were horrible' etc. - but you're still reducing yourself to their level for the sake of $. The answer was indeed actually 'invalid', but not for the reasons he seems to think ('I did not choose to be conceived'). Your parents are your parents. They're not a bank, and you don't get to start toting up ho…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:18 PM
-1

The original comment was; am I alone in thinking that college tuition is an gift that an 18 year old student has no entitlement to Followed by comments such as someone stating that they made a 'deal' with their parents that he'd look after them in their retirement if they paid for his college; to be honest, if my kids think that blackmailing your own parents for $ is a fair statement when they reach 18, I will consider myself a failure as a parent (and they'll get even more of the nothing they'r…
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:02 PM
-1

So you're the same now as when you were fucking conceived? You've had 18-odd years to develop and grow. Maybe your folks contributed a lot to that, maybe they didn't contribute anything; but waiting until they retire to 'get your revenge' on not having everything (like secondary education) handed to you for free says more about you than it does about them. It's not 'doing a deal' - it's blackmail.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 12:38 PM
-5

Puppies never grow up. Children do, and you can't blame your parents for everything not being dropped in your lap once you've technically become an adult. Well, you can, but you're still acting like an adolescent if you do.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 12:34 PM
2

I'm not attempting to recruit, I'm not attempting to appease. Because join-us-or-die has worked so well elsewhere. I'm laying out some facts, and their inevitable conclusions. After a header that will have driven many away already. Either you're for men's rights, or you're a counter-equality person. It's really that simple. Which many will now have to find out elsewhere.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 10:58 AM
1

Unless they scan and simply see 'If you don't agree with me, you're an asshole'....which will usually make people a) automatically hostile and b) not bother reading the article.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 10:56 AM
-3

Couldn't they argue that they didn't conceive to produce you? EDIT: Funny how 'you gave birth to me' is still apparently seen as any sort of justification when you're supposed to be old enough to make your own decisions.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 10:47 AM
6

there are plenty of situations where circumcision is necessary. And there you have the difference between 'when necessary' and 'normal'. This post/ link isn't about medicaid for circumcisions when medically needed - here's the first line from the Senator's response; First, I see this as a social justice issue. I think the decision a parent or parent(s) make about circumcision is very personal. Followed by a justification that basically amounts to 'lots of people do it, we want to allow them to d…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:16 PM
2

This is fantastic! I'm going to copy it, if you don't mind - funniest accurate comment I've seen this week
/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:49 PM
7

Considering the percentage of people who are uncircumcised in the UK (which is nearly everyone), I've yet to see any solid evidence stating circumcision is good. But apparently, faced with mutilation for no real reason, we're supposed to 'get the fuck over it'. My ears get dirty, so I clean them - I don't cut 'em off.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:05 PM
1

Despite being a repost (and quite old), I upvoted this because it was the image through which I discovered Christina Hendricks :-)
/r/MensRights03/02/12 11:47 AM
0

No, it doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 03:48 PM
1

Considering you don't seem to understand or appreciate the damage you do to your own cause by assuming a 'media does it = we can do it' mentality (the upshot of which, since you're too busy getting the pitchforks, is that both are ignored), I'm not 'fucking' sure how. But hey, this problem is 'delusional'. Do add more swearing and ALL CAPS, it really helps instead of a rational defense for acting as stupidly as the media.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 03:36 PM
1

TIL that I don't always agree with Dan Savage/ blanket statements. It's never even ocurred to me that a facial could even be interpreted as degrading, unless (I suppose) you're the kind who thinks the purpose of sex is to degrade. For example, it's not as if I feel degraded when the lower half of my face gets covered in a similar kind female of mess when returning the favour. Here's one example comment after the article - WTF? I would beat the shit out of some guy who came on my face without ask…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 03:02 PM
1

Of course that's true. Do you honestly think the media doesn't represent the norm? I am keeping this one. It's priceless.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 12:45 PM
1

No, we've already done it, several decades ago - and how about that, society didn't implode - and look at that! We arrived at the set of figures above that you've ignored. How's the hacking of those drones by the hicks? Y'know, it's so easy they must have done it years ago....oh.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:04 AM
1

I suggest you read your own posts where you state this is "polarizing." Hmmm....don't see anywhere in my posts stating that anyone is wrong for not automatically sacrificing themselves for the opposite sex - maybe you were too desperately looking elsewhere - I was illustrating that doing a Jack Ryan and polarizing everything into 'you're either for us or against us' and trying to corrall opinions rarely gets anyone anywhere, ever. I see that your posting history in other subs is the same kind of…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 10:00 AM
-2

Right. Media = norm. Got it.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:57 PM
-1

Cherry-picking by using the entire content of your non-committal concern trolling that dodges the issue at hand? Apart from the bits that didn't fit your assumptions. That was the point. Nice to see you redefine trolling as well, especially since I've already repeated the part that disproved this. Ok. If you say so. Which you continue to do. Up to you to show that I'm these things you say I am. Not true. I suspect this because you keep posting the same things while not addressing the issue raise…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:56 PM
-8

And you take that to be the norm, yes?
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:17 PM
-1

Your lackluster "arguments" lack substance. Considering you seem to be cherry-picking them, you can guess how much weight I'll give that statement. Try less hollow statements about how my opinions are "obviously" narrow and polarizing I'd have to see evidence to the contrary. Your entire posts consist of statements instead of suggestions/ questions (otherwise known as 'a discussion'). and show how and why they are, which I suspect you cannot You suspect because you haven't asked any questions, a…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 04:06 PM
0

It's all in the other posts you've made here No, they were concerns about his attitude to tragedy and such; you're just reading them from your agenda. I even pointed out that both sides of the argument have merit, and how as a result polarising doesn't help - but I guess you must have missed that part since it doesn't fit with your dications. Hence 'tell me what I think some more' - I gave you a clue, but you apparently still know what I mean better than I do. What was thay you were saying about…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:55 PM
1

Because you are being intellectually dishonest Really? On top of now being rude, you still haven't even asked a question. You don't even know what my opinions on this subject actually are. Shall I respond by telling you what you think, or is that dishonest too? But no, you'd rather re-iterate your blindingly obvious and narrow opinions, and provide a summary that I surprisingly had already managed to figure out for myself. In short, Too Late - you should have bothered with entering into a discus…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:42 PM
-1

Apparently you missed the various articles from traditionalists, feminists and white knights on this event that actually expect men to conform to archaic expectations that make value judgments about the value of human lives, that being that women are somehow inherently more valuable and worthy of surviving a shipwreck and that we should just accept this and die if we happen to be in such a situation and born the wrong sex. So far, the only alternative I've seen is the 'fuck everyone, my selfish …
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:27 PM
0

Daily Heil
/r/MensRights19/01/12 03:10 PM
3

And of course, people want to kill you every day, right? US murder rate by firearms - 2.97 per 100,000 UK murder rate by firearms - 0.12 per 100,000 Of course the 'I'd better get a bigger boat' argument doesn't matter when you need the right to bear arms in case you want to rise up against your government, right? Good luck against the drones with that. Shall we move onto how carry a knife makes it more likely that you'll get stabbed?
/r/MensRights19/01/12 01:38 PM
4

500,000 war casulaties =/= 1.8 Million deaths via HIV at the end of 2010. So I guess all these people complaining about war just have no idea eh? Hence the term 'reductive' - it just illustrates that one is making excuses. I have no issue with people looking out for themselves - but when they start listing naff excuses like class when asked why they prioritise themselves and stuff everyone else...well, don't expect your cause to go anywhere (and when it's generally a good one,...that's the probl…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 01:24 PM
-4

I thought people got shots for immunisation. (Noted that you think of people who don't like devices solely designed to kill people as 'control nuts')
/r/MensRights19/01/12 12:44 PM
3

Oh i assure you all over the world people were saying 'big fucking deal' because the point is that we care about disasters close to home Erm...that wasn't really true generally, certainly not for the UK or a lot of Europe. As another example, nobody thought 'meh' when the Tsunami thing happened (we helped with a benefit concert for it in Fairford, Gloucestershire for instance - despite nobody having any connections there at all). The money raised after the Hillsborough Disaster/ the Armenian Ear…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 12:43 PM
-1

Far more people than those who died on that ship die daily, that makes every day for every person a tragedy, unless we apply a metric. That's being reductive to a pointless degree. When 9/11 happened, I don't remember a prevailing attitude of 'so what? My gran died last week'. But i beg of you just start looking at the world and realise that there is always more outrage when Women die, or Men put themselves before Women, or anything which leads to Women being put at risk. This is where I run int…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 12:21 PM
-2

Well, there's my mistake - I don't agree with the OP doing the same.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:49 AM
-3

You mean the Death-toll which is actually quite low for an incident such as this? Wow, so now you have a score-table as to how many dead = tragedy. You are missing my point, when the mainstream media is OUTRAGED at the idea that Men are not putting their lives down to save others The mainstream media are outraged every day. I'm outraged that you need a totaliser to work out if death is a tragedy. then we have a problem because it shows a systemic devaluing of male life. In your opinion - but pol…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:48 AM
0

No indeed. Let's see how successful hijacking tragedies with seperate agendas has been in the past. Or wait a while and see for yourself.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:39 AM
-4

No, it's the death-toll that makes this an agenda-hijack about gender-battles. But hey, go right ahead - this sort of hijack approach works so well, generally.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:36 AM
-2

People get killed in an accident - let's make this a gender-battle issue.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:33 AM
-6

Yeah, let's hijack a recent tragedy with our own agenda. Nothing immoral with that. Nothing at all.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 10:53 AM
1

Just PM'd you. Count me in.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 12:05 PM
2

especially one which is just a facade for misogyny. Statements like this will be read in a Norwegian accent - "TROOOOOLLLLLL"
/r/MensRights10/01/12 01:33 PM
1

I am sure there is social stigma. Well, I'm sure you could find a country where this is true, but not so much UK. At least, not generally - if the social stigma was still in place here, the numbers would be going down, not up. Many people wouldn't date a single mother/father, But many more people do already. It really isn't seen as that big a deal - in fact, I'd go as far as to suggest that anyone stigmatising someone simply because they're a single parent is seen as pretty ignorant and low - it…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 04:45 PM
1

That's the thing - in Orwell's time, those 25 men generally had find a partner as being gay, a single parent (or in some cases just being single) were pretty much treated in the same horrible way. Compare that to now - there are now more single people living in a house/ flat/ etc. on their own than ever before, and the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) teen birth rate in Europe, and there's no social stigma to having a child by yourself any more with a bonus of the State acting as a…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 02:31 PM
2

No it's not valid at all - he's arguing from a position of post-war females having no partners and therefore having no children after wars that he had experience of. When the slaughter caused by a war leaves a surplus of women, the enormous majority of those women bear no children This is the line that's out of date.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:58 PM
1

On a site specifically for white men, don't forget
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:31 PM
2

Fantastic. As in, fantastically bad. Example - "Hold The Door Open For A Stranger" (with picture of huge bouncer that female appears to have opening a car door for her...which would be part of his job that she's paying him for). Other giggles were had at 'keeping us warm' and 'help us with our bags' - which both sort of come under the universal heading of 'my outfit is so desperately cool it has no pockets; despite your pointing this out several times before we left, will you look after my phone…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:28 PM
2

You'll be decreasing your chances of getting any last spare seats on the lifeboat. "Hey, that's the guy who started talking about equality when we all nearly drowned!"
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:19 PM
2

the enormous majority of those women bear no children Written by someone back when single-parent families were unheard of, and therefore are unaccounted for - which I would suggest makes this argument invalid.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 12:15 PM
1

On that page, there's a link to an interesting dissection of DW's statements about that night
/r/MensRights05/01/12 02:25 PM
1

Maybe they got it wrong, and American babies are actually saying NOMNOMNOMNOMNOM
/r/MensRights04/01/12 03:05 PM
2

I have to disagree - why only recently I was offered a simple three-step weight-loss option that a 'local mom discovered'
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:47 PM
1

Why use nationalistic spelling mistakes like 'Mom' that the rest of the planet doesn't?
/r/MensRights04/01/12 01:41 PM
4

Probably because unlike large parts of the rest of the world, the US considers girls under 18 as children. Unless, of course, there's a product to be sold to them. Then it's open season.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 12:38 PM
1

Not sure how matching their unemployment rate is going to help
/r/MensRights19/12/11 04:41 PM
7

Any surgical procedure carries risks, which is why using half-baked/ out-of-context theories to justify one on an infant aren't taken too well , and rightly so.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 11:52 AM
2

Bonus fact from her previous comments; i work at a convenient/grocery shoppe
/r/MensRights16/12/11 11:50 AM
2

Because reducing it all down to 'us vs. them' always works out so well for anyone, anywhere
/r/MensRights16/12/11 09:18 AM
1

Daily Heil
/r/MensRights16/12/11 08:58 AM
6

We often do that too. And those bots are there effectively doing it for us. You could be doing it more, and be a whole lot more effective if you weren't wasting time with a dedicated subreddit that already appears to be seen as an outrage-circlejerk elsewhere (and I'm not just talking about mensrights). I'm not up on the whole 'bots' thing though, other than the stuff reddit has in place to try and stop them. Plenty of people are monitoring SRS and thus will see us call them out That's avoiding …
/r/MensRights15/12/11 02:44 PM
4

That's why we focus on calling out bigotry that was upvoted. No you don't. 'Calling out' would involve making a reply in situ. Posting it in a seperate thread with a much smaller readership - isn't that a bit self-defeating, if your goal is actually to educate....well, anyone? Imagine if KKK-fanatics grabbed any headline or comment, regardless of context, and used it in a agree-with-us-or-be-modded subreddit to promote their views about black people. How is what you're doing any different?
/r/MensRights15/12/11 02:05 PM
2

No, but he's 100% spot-on about you :-)
/r/MensRights15/12/11 01:55 PM
2

Daily Fail
/r/MensRights15/12/11 01:38 PM
4

Ah, sorry now I get you - indeed, it's not as if there's a 'these are gross!' movement going on - fortunately :-) Compare that to the Sex and the City episode where one of them was 'confronted' by a natural penis; they then worried about it for an entire episode before coming to the conclusion that 'there's nothing wrong with them'. Well done girls, for giving the impression that you can take that long to decide something that should have been automatic!
/r/MensRights14/12/11 10:33 AM
11

no one bats an eye either way. I would argue that this is not the case, at least in our circles. If someone stated that they'd had their child circumcised, the next (automatic) question would be 'why, was there something wrong?'
/r/MensRights14/12/11 10:20 AM
1

Wow....quicktime.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 02:15 PM
2

If this was in the UK, she could have said it happened when they were out 'grabbin'
/r/MensRights12/12/11 04:20 PM
1

Isn't that where she's trying to cover him with the coat in order to stop him filming? In any case, don't get me wrong, their behaviour is wrong and all their excuses are wrong - but when we're dealing with spousal abuse, antagonising your opponent into a reaction doesn't give you a sturdy foundation to build a case on. You can 'assault' someone with water, but lowering your logic to their level will rarely result in hoisting them by their own petard.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 04:51 PM
1

In 1954, being gay wasn't considered part of your human rights in...well, most of the world.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:55 PM
1

Cue lots of comments about how nasty the government was in 1954 - because after all, it was all the Government and not society's view of gays in any way, right? Homosexuality wasn't even legal until thirteen years after Turing's death, but let's take it all out of context so that we can use our hindsight/ fingerpointing guns. Personally, I think Turing should be on the 'spare' plinth in Trafalgar Square - at least, I can't think of a recent Briton that deserves it more.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:53 PM
2

I'd agree with this, as long as it's appended with 'but strike a man, and you'll get treated like one'
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:48 PM
1

While I tend to agree with Daddy Justice and what he's trying to do, it's a bit of a stretch (to me) to claim that someone assaulted you because they tried to throw a coat over your camera...
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:46 PM
1

She doesn't need to find mine, she has her own. Still, this site will of no doubt be of some use to women still living in the seventeenth century
/r/MensRights06/12/11 02:08 PM
1

TL, DR; If you make rape jokes, then because rapists think that all men are rapists then making jokes means you're encouraging them. Next week - Why it's bad to like action movies (because you ultimately agree with violence), why chickens crossing the road are victims of a value judgement, and why computer games have to be banned for the sake of those that can't cope with them (etc.)
/r/MensRights06/12/11 02:01 PM
1

Women need to have a no-jerk policy. Odd that she says this, in the middle of laying out her knee-jerk policy Women can’t let men play games with them. If this went both ways, I would 100% agree. But ignoring all that, have a look at the picture of them both together - and tell me what's wrong with that picture.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:10 PM
2

Oh I think he may well be serious - but that doesn't mean it has to be taken seriously :-)
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:49 AM
1

Choose one name, or the other - it doesn't matter which (I'd go with whichever sounds better out loud), but giving your kids a double-barrelled surname version of both tells people one of two things; You couldn't decide, or one/ both of you is really that stubborn. Either way, your kids will then suffer from speculation for the rest of their lives, unless they change it themselves - did your folks split up? Are you a step-child? Etc...In short, it screams that your parents have issues.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:47 AM
1

Next week - how much money and time you'll save on cleaning your ears by cutting them off
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:38 AM
1

He makes a valid point, and you respond with four insults in one sentence.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:36 AM
1

Do you mean 'what if the Daily Mail printed credible journalism?'
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:34 AM
1

Meanwhile, back to those vampire monkeys....
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:32 AM
3

Wait, so you're actually taking that comment seriously?
/r/MensRights06/12/11 11:30 AM
1

Started reading this, but wsoctv.com decided that a bear waving at me was important enough to cover the text. Oh well.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 09:17 AM
15

I sort of think of this as 'Daddy's Princess Syndrome' - there are many, many women who are brought up to believe that nothing but the absolute best will do, because that's what they deserve, and if they don't get it they just won't bother - regardless of their own intelligence or appearance. This means that they become the equivalent of the dodgy entry-round singers on the likes of X-Factor, quite oblivious as to how bad they actually look/ sound and are subsequently shocked when it's pointed o…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 10:46 AM
1

I figured it might be something like that - but you can't let one experience cloud trust issues with future partners; you're tarring them with the brush reserved for a previous partner, and they won't like having to rise above your previous experience because of something that was nothing to do with them. I've been in similar situations in the past where I loved them but the idea of a child would have been horrifying - one girl didn't work for two years, letting me pay for all (both early 20's a…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 09:19 AM
3

There's a big difference between 'people lie' and 'birth control fails'. You may as well state 'don't depend on your partner', period.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:25 PM
3

Sex is sex, and there is a physical product which can occur from it. You're just romanticizing by assigning special relationship strings. No, you're pretending that the relationship has nothing to do with it. No doubt, that bad shooter should still go to prison. So you wouldn't be more surprised if the shooter was a partner or family member? And you'd accept them telling you that the relationship has no basis and that you should have taken more care? Now lets compare that with boning some woman …
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:13 PM
3

And the shooter would be....who? See if you can find which part of the OP's statement you're ignoring for your statistics to have relevance - because in my example, you've already figured it out...you could do worse than start with the difference between 'having sex with' and 'having a relationship with'
/r/MensRights30/11/11 03:14 PM
14

Yes it does - you're ignoring the situation. You may as well state 'sorry I shot you when we left your house, but there was a statistical chance you might get shot generally anyway, so it's your fault for not taking enough care'.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:32 PM
13

You made a choice when you had sex that there was a chance, however remote that you would be a father. That's how it works. What you're talking about is accidental pregnancy - that's not what has happened here.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:01 PM
1

EOD.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:51 PM
1

From what I've seen, both sides have redditors that are a bit too close to the subject matter to see the wood for the trees, so to speak. I've seen more than one discussion become 'whose side are you on?' battles - and this just highlights that in any discussion involving a lot of people (anywhere, not just reddit), the bullying minority tend to be the posterboys, with anyone disagreeing with them dismissed as 'not as dedicated to the cause'. I am of the opinion that any statement made in subred…
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:27 PM
1

And that left you blind?
/r/MensRights29/11/11 12:22 PM
1

Precedent?
/r/MensRights29/11/11 08:58 AM
-1

"One of the women threw water in my face and they injected me with something" I can just imagine Leslie Neilsen struggling across the room with that water. EDIT: But others apparently think that having water thrown in your face temporarily blinds you leaving you open to attack. Sounds 100% legit.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 01:24 PM
2

What's odd is that in countries like the UK that don't generally do this, I've never seen a study showing the percentage of resulting 'medical problems' that pro-slicers hold up as one of the primary reasons for doing it in the first place. You'd think that a population that's desperate to prove that they were mutilated for any real tangible reason would present such a study to anyone that queried it...
/r/MensRights26/11/11 01:40 AM
1

The flip-side of this (that we also considered at the time) was that the resulting ass-covering might detract from our son's treatment. Next time, fuck all that.
/r/MensRights25/11/11 01:34 PM
3

You need to read past the first two sentences.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:20 PM
2

What's odd is that in countries like the UK that don't generally do this, I've never seen a study showing the percentage of resulting 'medical problems' that pro-slicers hold up as one of the primary reasons for doing it in the first place. You'd think that a population that's desperate to prove that they were mutilated for any real tangible reason would present such a study to anyone that queried it...
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:17 PM
2

Yeah, we did realise (after the event) that we should have taken photos to record the medical notes at the time, before they could alter them. My wife did manage to audio record out neurologist (zero Alagille's experience) suggesting that maybe we'd just 'forgotten' that we'd injured our son (even pointing out that we could have lied-and-been-released-by-now fell on deaf ears). The trouble was that, going in, we really didn't expect anything like this to happen - we didn't start keeping a diary …
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:10 PM
1

This is, believe it or not, the short version. My son has Alagille's Syndrome, an umbrella term for a genetic fault that affects 1 in 100,000, so you've probably never heard of it. It can be mild, or it can be serious (as in, fatal). My Wife is a nurse, as is her mother. Once it was established that he had this thing, he was seen by healthcare professionals every nine days (it usually results in liver problems). Unfortunately, six months in he had a brain bleed. Once we'd been transferred to a s…
/r/MensRights22/11/11 01:44 PM
1

What did she say other than 'Jew boy' that was so disgusting that the paper omitted to mention any of it?
/r/MensRights22/11/11 09:21 AM
1

Unless you're Al-Jazeera and the victim is a female American reporter. In that situation, it's really not worth covering.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 03:01 PM
0

Well, that's the court's opinion. Now, shall we try some actual counselling instead of judgement?
/r/MensRights21/11/11 02:51 PM
1

Sorry OP - lots of commenters on here seem to think they're actually in court instead of counselling (or don't seem to understand the difference), preferring the moral high-ground to discussion. I went in with the same attitude you have, and my marriage was saved. Telling you to not bother is, to my mind, very very bad advice. In counselling, I didn't talk about everything/ anything that bothered me, just the core stuff that might help one way or the other. And it's about making both partners se…
/r/MensRights21/11/11 02:51 PM
1

Marriage...what a freaking joke. I have being boycotting weddings of my friends' for almost 5 years now. That's the first line, and right away it's apparent that he doesn't really understand that the two people who are getting married call the shots - not him. You may as well demand that everyone at the wedding eat vegan-style because, y'know, that's what you like.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 03:57 PM
14

To males and females. Let's see how popular the idea is then.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 08:53 AM
1

Forever alonely?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:18 AM
1

Dig deep enough, and you'll always find someone like this on either side
/r/MensRights07/11/11 09:23 AM
1

Interstingly, I clicked on the link and noticed this at the side. I'm left wondering how the girl will achieve what's written.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 02:11 PM
-6

turn over and I'm gonna spank you on your butt. You turn over like a 16 year old and take it! Like a grown woman! Turn over! 16 is a grown woman across most of the rest of the world. The US appears to be one of those countries that's fine with them joining the army, but insists that they're also somehow not ready to have sex. EDIT: Do point out how this is not so - because you'll have to enlighten me on how either the US has it right, and the rest of the world is wrong - or how people from the U…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 09:18 AM
3

That's great. Let's not question the law. EDIT: Nice try, Saul
/r/MensRights25/10/11 08:45 AM
3

That's fantastic..."Yours bore us, ours offend you"
/r/MensRights04/10/11 10:19 PM
5

Back in those days, being gay was still seen as a crime or an illness
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:00 AM
1

I still think the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square should have him on it
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:59 AM
2

...after accusing one of them of stealing his gun from his home that's uninhabitable for young children...not sure I can really lay all that on her alone.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 12:06 PM
1

Indeed. Though, I'm not sure what that says about porn, nowadays. I've noticed that men are a lot more relaxed - I can still remember guys worrying about getting turned on by seeing a hard-on onscreen and what it meant if they got turned on, as well as women avoiding porn altogether - in that respect, we've come a long way. I think we can agree the third is our best option. Yeah, I'd dearly love 2) to be a possibility, but 3) seems like the only option! Not for the prejudiced and ignorant. Their…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 10:34 AM
1

Troll transphobia. That is what most people have. I don't agree. You're labelling a huge percentage of people simply because of their preferences. you do not need someone's consent to be a man or woman. You do not need to ask, you either are or are not. That's correct, but I don't need anyone's consent to be an astronaut, either - the problems start when I demand others treat me as an astronaut. And, what problems? A one night stand? Sex? What problems -_- Once deceit is involved, you lose the m…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:48 AM
1

The first two postquote responses didn't exactly answer anything. Apart from putting your examples into context. This is my point. Being trans puts you at a higher risk of physical danger. You cite that this does not happen by the dozen, to which I say "how would you know?" You're suggesting that the entire population of trans is in danger of death, every day? Without figures for attacks as a percentage of trans population generally, why would you assume this? No, violence is not provoked. Anyti…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 08:53 AM
1

More differences need to be corrected. Indeed, I can't wait - the current options seem like the dark ages. Where it gets interesting is - do you fix the brain to match the body, or vice versa? The immediate choice is to let the brain (= the person) choose, but at what point do you draw the line? How off-key does someone's brain have to be before you start fixing that instead of what their brain currently thinks is normal for them? He responded "there's always anal". Heheheh some guys just aren't…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 09:18 AM
1

Fair compromise? All sounds good But, you don't know and aren't really obligated to do anything either way as he isn't being physically harmed. You could describe fraud like that, but I get your point. I would play things in almost 100% the same way you describe - however, you use the word 'prejudice', which I'm not sure applies. 'Prejudice' is an opinion based on a lack of facts - but sexual preference can be just that, a preference. It doesn't have to come from a prejudice, but if your potenti…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 09:02 AM
1

Crikey, I was only away for three days! Lots of good stuff here (thank you!), so I'll answer 'em all as posted. I'd assert it is the norm.... Says who? A margin of society being killed off so casually as it is apparent to any casual member of society is not a realistic thing, outside politically assisted genocide. I don't see how - sure, trans are at higher risk, but that doesn't mean they're constantly under threat of murder. In some places in the world, the murder of a trans may not been seen …
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:45 AM
1

TIL that a quarter of primary schools in my country have no male teachers. Until teachers are by default given the benefit of the doubt (or children stop being treated as adults in these situations), I can't see this changing. Elsewhere; Speaking from his detached house in Winchester Er....OK, I needed to know exactly what sort of house he lives in.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 03:13 PM
2

but how did you arrive at this? Well we're getting into a different situation here - I'm not suggesting that trans have an easy time all the time...in fact, that's partly why I'm so much more keen on the DNA approach (when it arrives) than creating a physical approximation. Even so - sure, trans can be killed in the wrong situation, just like anyone - but that's not really the norm, is it? There's a huge trans community in central London, but they're not being slaughtered by the dozen - comparin…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 11:21 AM
2

Yeah, thought that might happen - bleat about being misrepresented when you've been doing it to me (and others), then compain that you're being misrepresented before actually having to back up your original assertions. Failing to back up a statement (and avoiding it in subsequent posts) does not a strawman make.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:49 AM
1

I'm so tempted to bite the three-links-all-pointing-to-the-exact-same-event attempt to substitute inadequate evidence for an extraordinary claim you made, but I said I was going to focus you and I am. I was higlighting that this is major news, that you apparently haven't heard of, making it impressive that you consider it inadequate. You can find more here Nor will I. I'm ignoring all of your extraneous arguments until I can get you to actually respond to what I've brought up. Convenient. You hi…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 12:32 PM
2

as you continue to shift the ground of the debate, move goalposts and then make unsubstantiated claims Otherwise known as 'context' and 'background'. And I've provided links - you haven't, even when I've questioned them (still waiting for the biological study that says there's no physiological difference between a woman and a post-op female trans). And you haven't explained how, if surgery/ drugs can create a regular female, why anyone would go for the gene-therapy option when it becomes availab…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 10:18 AM
1

Aaah but she paid you to do that
/r/MensRights21/09/11 01:21 PM
2

Be varned - the page has text, but is primarily a link to a radio show...I clicked and got The Rolling Stone's 'Satisfaction' blaring out of my work speakers.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 01:10 PM
1

You keep repeating this as though the mere repetition ads weight to the claim. As do you. I've explained the gender is a social construct and is thus mutable. No you haven't, you've mentioned studies that suggest it's mutable. And I answered with how that doesn't apply - Biology, for instance. If true, that clearly means that if someone changes the appearance of their gender they are at least potentially changing the gender itself. To themselves. Not to everyone else. You are free to disagree wi…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 11:43 AM
2

Trans people do not assert that they change their sex through hormones and surgery. Assertion is all very well, but how you rationalise something to yourself doesn't change the reality. You're not becoming a woman, you're having surgery to adapt your body to simulate how your brain feels your body should be - but that doesn't mean you can assert that your body is now female any more than contact lenses are actually your eyes. his observation was a misrepresentation of the views trans people hold…
/r/MensRights21/09/11 09:11 AM
-2

Strawman how? You've just demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't seem to grasp what he's saying. You appear to be suggesting that the attitudes and opinions of trans people somehow outweighs his observation, which is wrong and doesn't address his point - if you are genuinely a woman trapped in a mans' body, then you can have surgery (and drugs) to affect the appearance, but you're still a woman within a mans' body that's been altered as such. How you (as a trans) see it or justify it to yo…
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:30 PM
6

Some if not most American people
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:25 AM
1

Not necessarily. So if a woman insisted that you were the father of her child, why would you not go to court to prove otherwise? And if you refused, how would that be to your advantage in the eyes of the court? It depends on whether or not a crime was committed, i.e., falsifying a birth certificate. ...or failing to pay maintenance - leading to a court visit you could have avoided just by providing another copy of the information you're supposed to have created a baby with in the first place.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 01:49 PM
2

Snce they can't know if it's your DNA or not. Which they can find out by taking you to court and getting a test from you anyway. That would be up to the father. Perhaps the father would be happy to get out. Can you refuse to give a DNA sample if it gets to court? And why would you refuse the one option that would prove parentage? This doesn't make any sense, at all. Which part don't you understand? You can't have DNA tests that you can use or ignore depending on what you want the outcome to be.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 12:45 PM
5

All this talk of 'giving up' your DNA info....aren't you 'giving it up' when you make the baby in the first place? Because then it's the mothers' to control anyway. And even ignoring that, if the mother decided to insist that you were the father, wouldn't you have to take a DNA test anyway to prove it one way or the other anyway? It's a two way street - the mother could use the pre-existing info to prove you were the father, but it could also prove you weren't....
/r/MensRights19/09/11 08:09 AM
1

Maybe they're 'Trollettes'
/r/MensRights16/09/11 08:54 AM
1

...and also aren't allowed to drink.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 11:20 AM
1

You don't recognise them as having slight differences?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 10:54 AM
1

That's what I'm highlighting - Boys are allowed to join the army, despite being a 'minor' Girls are allowed to get face-fucked on the internet but aren't considered old enough to drink. The law has become such that 'equal' seems to be read as 'identical' - what could possibly go wrong?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 09:16 AM
1

You're suggesting that boys and girls are identical?
/r/MensRights15/09/11 09:10 AM
8

A sixteen-year-old boy is a 'minor'. Uh-huh. Old enough to join the British army, but not old enough to have sex. Righto.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:42 PM
2

Suprising that there aren't more posts along the usual lines of "There's nothing wrong with it, I'm quite happy with mine, what do you mean I'm going to be biased?"
/r/MensRights13/09/11 10:46 AM
2

Fortunately
/r/MensRights13/09/11 08:09 AM
1

Don't worry, there seems to be plenty of redditors like that too
/r/MensRights12/09/11 11:34 AM
3

Oh, I'm not suggesting that any marriage will be a cannot-fail success story - but I also wouldn't recommend that people base possibly life-changing decisions on just this subreddit. I don't see how this advice or my analogies are 'incorrect' or not in line with the FAQ's. you run at least a 10-30% chance of being stuck in those painful situations. And that's significant!! Yes it is, but you don't really get a balanced picture by concentrating on the failures, do you? If I showed you hundreds of…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:56 PM
5

Er...which entry in the sidebar? And which statistic? And if you're suggesting that mensrights is a good cross-section of female/ male behaviour to base decisions on, what is your justification? Are there lots of posts involving happy outcomes to balance the outrage-posts? Lots as in an overwhelming majority? EDIT: I wouldn't suggest someone just go to /r/Microsoft or /r/Apple if they wanted to learn everything about OS's, so I'm not sure why lurking in a /r/genderrights thread is any different.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:11 PM
5

That's not the point I was making - another example is to work in a police station and assume that all of society are lowlife criminals, simply because that's all you see every day. In the same way, MensRights is not a good cross-section to base decisions on. EDIT: Er....OK. Feel free to highlight why this is not so.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 12:33 PM
3

Only hobbits
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:30 AM
3

That's odd, I've been married for fourteen years. I guess I'm not really here
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:26 AM
2

Isn't that a bit like working in A&E, and deciding that you're never going to drink because of the outcomes you've been exposed to?
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:24 AM
3

Can he sue the state for this?
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:23 AM
1

I think only one woman in history was said to have reproduced without a man. Don't pretend that getting the ingredients you need from somewhere else counts as 'involving a man'. Alternatively find me some historical examples of males deciding to have and rear a child on their own (bearing in mind that you have to outdo the number of women that do this)
/r/MensRights06/09/11 08:05 AM
7

Unless the problem is dental. Or needs to be treated ASAP.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 01:51 PM
11

Can we have a 'man tax' to compensate for longer working hours, a shorter lifespan, and the inability to reproduce on our own? In fact, make it a bit bigger because we now need to also compensate for whinging female journalists on a slow day at the indie.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 01:50 PM
8

I've already torn a strip off of FB friends that think it's 'a laugh' for their male partner to be called and congratulated all day because of a pregancy that hasn't happened. I've pointed out that if the guys on FB started a slew of 'With a girl from the office, several times, last tuesday' statuses, it would strangely not be seen as quite so hilarious.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 10:35 AM
10

Assuming that they weren't aware he was taking photos.... ...how do you cover this sort of thing? I mean, if you take photos without their consent, aren't you then opening a different kettle of charges?
/r/MensRights30/08/11 02:33 PM
6

Top comment from the page - can anyone confirm/ deny this? I know Vicky and I have known her for many years, it comes as no surprise to me that she finds herself in this predicament. Possibly the most socially ambitious gold digger I ever came across. She has built a life on a web of lies, she was never a professional model, she was thrown off a trainers yard after an affair with the married Trainer when his wife found out and did an 'expose' in a sunday paper some years ago after having an affa…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 11:02 AM
4

Yeah, thought I'd list that quote because men only seem to get to use it as a defense when they're judged insane.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 02:37 PM
3

"She is a very troubled young woman in need of much help"
/r/MensRights12/08/11 01:55 PM
1

A big part of this problem is that the investigation hasn't yet been completed, but the officer who shot the man went back to work weeks after the incident. Why is this surprising? Unless the shooting was witness/ reported by someone with a conflicting story, why would you remove police from duty every time they shot someone? In any case, I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted for a conversation (I've upvoted you), but I will have a dig for more info.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 02:40 PM
1

And so, should we not report on that which police refuse to comment? Reporting is one thing - it's the automatic assumption that there is no more info that gets me. There are far, far too many Jack Ryans on reddit/ generally who think that everyone is black/ white, and anything in the middle is to be treated as suspicious. The problem with this is that when (as in a lot of cases) the police are exonerated, those who frothed the most at the original piece will usually then insist that the police …
/r/MensRights11/08/11 02:37 PM
1

So the mutation that affects the flagellum part doesn't signal other mutations that might be present? I'm thinking in evolutionary terms; why evolve a race-for-the-fittest-sperm if it ultimately makes no difference?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 01:17 PM
1

Until DNA-fixing is done as a matter of course, I'd prefer to go with as healthy as possible by natural means - rather than hoping I'll have the cash to fix things later. That said, both my kids came out with a rare inherited DNA problem (less than 1 in 100,000 people get it, I should play the lottery), so I'm in the latter boat anyway - but the principle is still sound
/r/MensRights09/08/11 08:45 AM
1

There's no correlation between Sperm health and quality of DNA?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 08:23 AM
5

Y, we thought of that - but the trouble there is that you're then choosing a sperm at random to impregnate the egg; and if 'random' cut it, they wouldn't have to compete in the normal run of things...
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:59 PM
2

I gave this some thought, then realised that if my Wife left or was suddenly killed, I could potentially meet someone new and have children with them in the space of two-to-five years - which could be problematic if I'd already removed myself from the breeding pool...(My Wife suggested that she get sterilised, but it would work the same way for her)
/r/MensRights08/08/11 02:34 PM
9

Sheriff's Lt. Dan Norris tells Hair Balls he doesn't have any further info on the incident, including the name of the woman, who was arrested for making a false report. Remember that, if no video had been made, the guys' name would have been made freely available.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 08:55 AM
0

See?
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:30 PM
1

Nope - just stating the obvious. I never consider whether someone is trolling, because even if they are someone else will probably be reading who really does hold that point of view and may hopefully now consider something instead of using half-stories to reinforce their worldview. Trolls never seem to consider this :-)
/r/MensRights05/08/11 07:43 AM
1

I don't see how - my perspective is that without an answer to the question you just asked (for instance), we don't have enough info and going purely on what a lawyer pursuing a claim says is not enough. The police aren't an emergency locksmith service unless they have a valid reason - which means the valid reason must almost certainly have come from the woman who had just had a fight with her husband and been told (or made) to leave. If you'd just been in that situation with an SO, would you gre…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:32 PM
1

Again, you think we're talking about mob justice, but the majority of the conversation has really been centered on why should this have ever happened to begin with. No, the majority of the conversations I've seen revolve around the assumption that there is no more information. And going purely on a lawyer's statement that's the opener for a lawsuit against the police - that is mob justice. I mean really, can you think of a justification for a police officer entering a home and shooting an unarme…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:53 PM
0

What the wife said to police has absolutely no bearing on whether there existed an objectively legitimate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the police or others How do you arrive at that conclusion? Are you suggesting that police will actively ignore any information they have about the inside of a premises they're about to enter? Don't be stupid. Fine - don't be insulting with replies that give no other info than 'you're wrong'. Easy, really.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:35 PM
0

You asked; The only issue is whether there existed an objectively legitimate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the police or others. Which I had already addressed with; So the question really is - what did the Wife say to the Police between their arrival and their breaking into the house? Unless you can think of another reason that could account for their actions. Maybe the guy attacked them or something, but FYI - restating the question does not make for a conversation. Or make what I…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 01:12 PM
0

Indeed - I'm sure they deal (for instance) with plenty of women who have been beaten by their husbands who then decide that there's no problem once they actually arrive. The story as it stands is so full of holes, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Even the title of the OP speaks volumes - did the Wife really just 'call police to help her get into her home', or did she have a fight with her husband who asked her to leave, after which she called the police? One of these descriptions …
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:59 AM
0

Oh indeed, it certainly does happen - but this is one of those cases where all the info is one-sided (from the lawyer), but what bugs me more is that when they turn up, the bad apples (and there always are) are used to tar the whole lot. And you can't be scathing about the police generally, because it's a surefire way to be ignored; you only get to be scathing because of the automatic trust placed on the Police in the first place. If you don't have that, then you're just another armchair expert …
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:49 AM
-1

You mean like the guy in Norway? Yeah, that one guy really proves a point. Maybe I should use him as an example of why all guns should be banned in the U.S., see how far that gets me. Because being murdered is the appropriate punishment for refusing to comply with orders from costumed criminals. You mean instead of listening to amateur armchair experts who define anyone without their personal sanction as criminals? Uh-huh. Righto. Got it.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:37 AM
0

Er...that's pretty much what I just said.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:25 AM
-1

Which means we're down to she said/ he said, not forgetting the article has come from a lawyer. Now, since police don't usually kick doors in ready to shoot the first head that pops up based on nothing, does that sound particulary plausible?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:11 AM
1

Says who? Who has all this info come from? Re-read my post, since you don't seem to be getting my point
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:00 AM
-1

No, you're failing to see a pattern that repeats on reddit over and over. It's why the tabloids only feature the information they do - get everyone worked up over nothing, because when the full info comes out it'll be yesterdays news. You speak of speculation, but the vast majority of speculation seems to be about how the police are facists, police state, blah blah. Yesterday, where were all the comments about how there must be more info that has been provided? Why do so few note that all the in…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 07:50 AM
-5

Actually, I was highlighting the lack of information. And, as always, the bullying minority on reddit detest anything getting in the way of their cop-hate - because they're miles apart from the sort of people that believe Fox News. Or at least, they think they are. EDIT : But apparently, the lynch mob already have all the info they need, right?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:49 PM
0

Any officer that refuses to provide basic aid to a wounded individual while they are on the job should be fired and arrested for negligence, especially if it resulted in someones death. He was also armed - an accomplice took the gun away - go find the thread for more details, but I would suggest that any officer who attempts to give medical aid can be sued for doing something outside of their remit, that's why they'll usually wait for the Fire Brigade to remove people from twisted wrecks, for in…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:37 PM
-3

Because you have all the information you need from a lawyer on a news site. Uh-huh. The pitchforks are over there.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 03:12 PM
-11

No, not anti-female, I was just giving an example of what a woman could say to the police to cause something like the above to happen. Maybe she told them he was high. Maybe she told them he'd killed someone. Maybe she told them he was armed. Not sure why you think I'm paranoid for presenting possible alternatives that would cause this sort of thing to happen instead of going on what a lawyer says and readying the torches and pitchforks. There are very large holes in the story, so I'm not sure h…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 02:18 PM
-21

Once a cop shoots an unarmed, half asleep guy in his own home? Yeah I think that's all the information that's needed in this case Not true. It's still the police officers job to assess the situation Based on the information they have, and if they get told there's a crazy man inside threatening to kill people (for instance), they're going to work from that. not some pissed off wife who has no training with this sort of situation. You mean 'the public'. And if her info is all they have to go on, w…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:37 PM
3

Which tells me you really don't know the defintion of 'Police State'. But for extra laughs, go see the United States' entry on the Wiki page - A Ron Paul quote and Vaccinations. Crikey, you do have it tough.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:18 PM
-28

Because that's all the info you need, right? EDIT: Wow, sorry lynch mob, was I standing between you and your torches/ pitchforks?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:16 PM
8

So the question really is - what did the Wife say to the Police between their arrival and their breaking into the house? Seeing as he had asked her to leave, I highly doubt it was 'Oh, I'm a silly goose! Can you let me in?"
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:15 PM
6

Indeed - and I'm pointing out that the entire premise for removal is a strawman unless you're a third-worlder. And keeping it clean does make a difference. Thrush, for a start. And girls tend to go near it more often, which to me would be the most important reason of all :-)
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:17 AM
7

Arguing for the removal of something because of the potential risk is a strawman to begin with - after all, Americans don't have their appendix removed at birth. Why not? It doesn't do anything, it's a risk, etc. - and there are several other similar examples. In short, you're mutilating children and justifying it based on the chance they might catch something, when the vast majority of uncircumcised first-worlders manage not to anyway - and that's before we get to condoms; don't use third-world…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 11:01 AM
2

Yeah, a terrific advert for religion and your constitution.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 08:30 AM
8

"The idea we would put doctors in jail for performing a procedure with known health benefits that parents request for their children is outrageous," she said. My ears get dirty - cutting them off in a medical procedure would keep them cleaner, so can we allow that too? EDIT: I don't think I've ever had a discussion where I deleted my entire account, ruining the thread for anyone else reading it. Can anyone provide a link to that site that shows pre-deleted threads? PM it to me and I'll put it he…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 08:28 AM
1

Ditto cop stories, 'police state' stories...almost anything where the only evidence you see is from the victim via publication/ website.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 08:35 AM
1

'Others' means more than one. Do try to keep up. And feigning not-caring doesn't really hold when you've created a thread specifically so that you can bleat about being banned.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 08:04 AM
1

It's not your call as to what terms others find offensive. Your orientation makes no difference, BTW
/r/MensRights12/07/11 11:04 PM
5

fucking runners...
/r/MensRights07/07/11 04:29 PM
9

Agreed - of course you don't count death as more primary than a harsh social situation. Bless 'er. EDIT: To reflect addition to above comment.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 04:28 PM
0

I can't imagine tell a girl something like that and her reply being "Well, that's a bit of a deal breaker for me"
/r/MensRights06/07/11 08:11 AM
1

Which is why it’s nauseating to see people hurtle headlong towards a clear conclusion: Men are the poor victims of vindictive women who use sex, or accusations of sex, as a weapon. Wow, one case represents all? Sounds like she's trying to out-stupid men as well.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 10:18 AM
1

Why don't they ask Lara Logan? Oh, that's right, Al Jazeera have never heard of her.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 09:41 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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