TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

UknowUloveMEsoSAYit Archive

View 0 posts and 73 comments by UknowUloveMEsoSAYit on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

And the hassle of getting on the school board meeting agenda, and formulating a concise, persuasive speech to the school board, and finding and understanding what policies might have been violated, and what reforms are indicated, and what potential exists for a lawsuit given the facts of this suspension, and how to negotiate a reform without filing one, and how to position the teacher and the principal to give ground without losing face, and...
/r/MensRights18/04/13 06:07 PM
1

And the kid needs to find a sympathetic adult mentor to advise him on this process.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 04:39 PM
1

In times of danger, me step forward, women step back. We can change this. Teach your daughters they have the ability and responsibility to be heroes. Don't tolerate helplessness in them.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 03:57 PM
1

If you can point to that reading, I am curious to see it.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 08:24 AM
1

You are not likely to maintain your excellent credit score if you have misunderstandings about what affects your credit score. If you think that not paying your bills does not negatively affect your credit record, you will benefit from some research. You can ignore the "conventional wealth-building stuff" if you like. There is an abundance of other information there that will be useful to you. You could also go to /r/frugal and ask for suggestions on financial literacy sources. You are likely to…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 05:28 AM
1

You can't get blood from a stone, but when hospitals don't get their blood, that information ends up on your credit report. I explained to you that medical bills are the largest factor in a majority of personal bankruptcies. In those cases, the hospital got no blood from the stone, yet the person's credit is destroyed for a decade. And do you not think unpaid taxes show up on your credit report? You need some basic financial education. Check this out: http://www.soleredemption.com/wp-content/upl…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:28 AM
1

This agreement was voluntary on the part of the hospital. If your parents did not pay the $30 per month, I suspect the failure to pay the bill would have shown up on your parents' credit report. Then, until they paid it in full, every time they applied to rent an apartment, they would be refused. When they applied for jobs as a truck driver, insurance adjuster, mall security guard, computer programmer, lawyer, or stockbroker, unpaid bills would disqualify them from getting an interview. This was…
/r/MensRights11/04/13 03:41 AM
1

Medical debt is one of the main factors leading to bankruptcy. In fact, it’s a contributing cause in 62 percent of personal bankruptcy filings, according to a 2009 study that appeared in the American Journal of Medicine. That's a nuclear bomb on your credit.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:58 PM
2

In this case, in a hospital "screaming from the chest pains," they have to give emergency care. It's required by COBRA, Roberts v. Galen, and in various other legislation and bench law. A private doctor can refuse almost any new patient. A hospital may refuse only persons who are in stable condition.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:56 PM
89

They have to help you, but you still get a bill. If you don't pay, you still get a bad credit report. If you have bad credit, you still sleep in the streets and lose job offers. If you are a man.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:13 PM
1

Yes and no. Title IX is a federal law. Federal courts have said to a large extent that Title IX is not meant to establish equality, rather it is meant to give opportunities to girls (meaning that Title IX is a law meant to protect only girls, not boys). The courts have said that schools have compelling reasons for excluding boys from female-only sports teams that outweigh the rights boys have to equal treatment. Courts have addressed volleyball specifically, separate from hockey, field hockey, k…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:59 AM
0

There is bench law on this. He is highly unlikely to win. It would require overturning well established precedent.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:04 PM
-1

You still say we have not eliminated gender segregation in other areas? This is incomprehensibly irrational. I don't think you actually believe your own statement. You are not here to discuss a meaningful issue. You seem to be here to argue for your own amusement.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 07:01 AM
1

You are saying we have not gotten rid of gender segregation in other places? Like medical schools, Rotary Clubs, Little League baseball... Do you expect to be taken seriously when you make statements that are so obviously false? I wonder what motivates you to do so. This 16 year old is a male child, not an adult. And you defend the policy that sends him out on the street where a 16 year old daughter would be allowed to stay. That's reprehensible because it values females over males. That's how y…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:41 AM
-2

Do you also support uni-sex hotels for men only? And airplanes that exclude women? And universities, if men are uncomfortable studying around women? Golf courses? What other public places should women not be allowed to access?
/r/MensRights09/04/13 06:19 AM
1

What you argue is that this male child should be separated from his mother because he is male, while a girl would not be separated from her family.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:37 AM
1

When we confronted the issue of race, shelter was among the first places we did it. We have already gotten rid of gender segregation in other places. It's time to bring equality to homeless shelters, too. Having segregated spaces still means boys, but not girls are divorced from their families. You think it's okay to value girls more than boys, that you think it is less important for boys to remain with their families, and that if an adult woman is uncomfortable around a male child, it is the ma…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:35 AM
1

By allowing handicapped people into public accommodations, we have historically caused serious discomfort from narrow-minded idiots who think it is unpleasant to look at cripples and retards. Eating next to someone with Turret's or Cerebral Palsy did once make most people uncomfortable. Our disregard for this bigotry when we mainstreamed handicapped people has gone a long way to reducing that problem. We can accomplish the same thing be ignoring the narrow-minded idiots who are uncomfortable wit…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:50 AM
1

That's what we once told black people about going to college.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:42 AM
1

If I exclude women and black males from Yale and West Point, will you defend this policy: "The universities have a valid mission. They provided a service needed to a specific subset of white males who usually have different needs than woman and black men"? You seem to be saying that 16 year old girls need to stay with their families, and 16 year old boys do not. Even if there were another shelter, why does the family have to be split up when they have a son, but not a daughter? What special need…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:12 AM
-1

you've changed the message to be "battered women's shelters are only about feelings and need to be shut down." Where did I say that? By denying the 16-year old a place with his family, you make it more likely that he will end up with crazies and drug addicts. Good idea. Separate transports for women? That's insane! Unless you live in Japan, I guess, where they do actually need separate trains to cut down on sexual assaults. Or India, where they probably should. Wait, I thought it was insane? ins…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:59 AM
3

You may have misunderstood. I do not imply there are acceptable reasons for shopping malls to exclude people with handicaps, rather I was making a comparison using the statement made by aardvarkious while changing the shelter to another form of public accommodation so that you can see the inappropriateness of excluding handicapped people from malls is similar to the inappropriateness of excluding anyone from a shelter because of gender. Women and children only shelters are bad when they cause fa…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:12 PM
4

I am saying it is absurd to think we should discriminate with respect to any form of public accommodation merely to protect the feelings of some women. If we proposed such a thing among airlines, it would immediately be seen as bullshit. It should be seen as bullshit when it occurs in homeless shelters.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:54 PM
9

Women do not claim this privilege because of rape, they claim it because of discomfort. The issue is the feelings of women, not the behavior of boys. Boys can feel uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:44 PM
9

Society is misguided about what benefits fathers provide.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:54 AM
17

Society makes it easier for single fathers by taking away their children. If you don't have custody, you don't have to worry about housing for the kids.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:35 AM
12

So now we discriminate against single males rather than all males? Do we refuse entry to females not in the company of family?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:34 AM
12

If women are uncomfortable on airplanes with the vast majority of passengers are male, can we implement some female only flights and refuse to carry male passengers? The mere mention of a woman possibly feeling uncomfortable seems to get them any accommodation they want at the expense of men. If this 16-year old boy was uncomfortable in a shelter where there were mostly females, why not kick out all the females?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:32 AM
14

Then why not deny shelter space to 16 year old girls that might make it uncomfortable for a 12 year old boy to change clothes?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:30 AM
13

The same argument was used to deny access to public places to people with disabilities: Depending on the arrangements, I think there can be valid reasons for a shopping mall to only accept people that can walk. If there are ambulatory-only shopping malls, there should be consumer good available to the handicapped in other malls. We rightly decided this is bullshit and required the owners of public buildings to install wheelchair ramps. We can similarly require homeless shelters to make whatever …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:29 AM
1

This does not suggest the state indemnifies bail bondsmen. I see no reason to claim Arby's was negligent, that is, they allowed it. It appears that they learned of the armed invasion at the same time everyone else did. They are certainly not obliged to installed fortifications. Unless there is other shocking evidence, they are off the hook. If you want deep pockets, look for the bail bondsman that hired them. If it was known they are crazy and they were hired anyway, maybe. Still unlikely.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 01:33 PM
0

I have no doubt that you are more than fine with illegal banking practices, and preventing the rightful owners of money and property from retrieving it from criminals. In fact, you have described the practice as "perfect". I am well aware that Switzerland is a wonderful place to live. Likewise America is a wonderful place to live. That Switzerland is wonderful does not show that Swiss are morally superior to Americans.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:25 AM
1

There is no reason to think that Arby's is responsible for any tort in this case. A good lawyer will not sue anyone who is not apparently responsible for a tort. Bounty hunters are not indemnified by the state, licenses notwithstanding. Barbers have licenses from the state, but not state insurance.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:22 AM
1

Your banks collaberated with Nazis to hide money and other property. They collaberated with drug cartels to hide money and other property. There is abundant reason to believe they still do in both cases. I completely accept your criticism of the U.S., but to hold Switzerland out as perfect is misleading. Switzerland has different problems than the U.S., but has problems nonetheless. Swissies are not morally superior to Americans.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:40 AM
1

If they hadn't been wearing pink shirts, you might be right. But they clearly shoehorned gender into the equation.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:27 AM
2

You collaborated with Nazis and drug cartels.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:24 AM
3

But they have pink shirts and fatigue trousers.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:22 AM
4

These women don't have a million dollars. They don't even have insurance for that much. They are buffoons. He can win a lawsuit, but he can't collect.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:21 AM
0

Asking for consensual sex makes a man a creep?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:40 AM
6

I didn't day any such thing. The headline says most men are hidden rapists. The item says the presumption that women's behaviour causes their rapes harms men. Neither the headline not the item are about staying safe. Please read more carefully.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:39 PM
34

This does NOT say most men street hidden rapists. It says that the l presumption that women cause their own rapes is harmful to men. This is true. The headline is grossly misleading and dumb.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 07:51 AM
1

"Sharing domestic responsibilities, too" means women do more work, right, because as Farrell points out in The Myth of Male Power, when yardwork, painting, repairing, and so on are coded as domestic responsibilities, men support their households with 61 hours per week of working, commuting, childcare, and housework, while women support their households with only 56 hours per week, meaning men do 260 hours per year more work (the equivalent of 6.5 extra 40-hour work weeks per year). This data is …
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:56 PM
1

I think the idea of a support group on a college campus is awesome. Do it! Strategically, it might be better to do this as a Trojan horse. What I mean is, instead of beginning with a support group that would appeal only to victims, start a more broadly focused group, then launch the support group within that. You can start an awareness and action group that focuses on violence toward men which might have the goals of informing the public about risks, preventative measures, resources for victims,…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 05:11 AM
6

I am curios to know what she means by strike down. Argue? Lawsuits? The Holy staff of Moses?
/r/MensRights02/03/13 03:02 PM
1

If you wait for something fishy, it might be to late.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 11:22 AM
4

Can you be more specific about HOW you are fighting?
/r/MensRights02/03/13 11:18 AM
1

Link to original article broken.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 02:37 PM
3

You can't compare fat boys and fat girls? Researchers collected data on numerous quality of life indicators and correlated these with gender and obesity. Can you be more specific about why you think this is not a comparison of quality of life or mental health of obese boys and girls? And you clearly disagree with the results. Can you please explain why you think the researchers are wrong, and discuss how you reached the conclusion that boys and girls are affected equally by obesity. I will be ve…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:37 AM
-2

You have failed to establish that these conditions exist. Out is not true that the intelligence of women is undervalued. It is not true that you are expected never to have sex. Endometriosis does not happen every month. Out is not considered okay to discriminate against women in hiring (out is okay to discriminate against men). You are a crackpot.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:31 AM
-5

It is really convenient for women to say under circumstances where they have it better, "It is no use to carry on about who had it worse."
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:25 AM
4

Could all of the people who said they would be willing to go but for distance please organize an event in your own community?
/r/MensRights06/02/13 05:07 AM
1

That there is an ongoing investigation would not prevent the victim from speaking publicly.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:53 AM
1

On what basic legal principles should I brush up? The ones where the First Amendment don't apply to crime victims or witnesses? In U.S., where this case took place, talking about an ongoing investigation can lose a cop his job or a prosecutor his case, except there is no law preventing it, and it's common as fuck. But I made it clear I was not talking about the cops or the prosecutor, I was talking about the victim. Under what statute can a citizen lose his freedom for talking about a case in wh…
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:52 AM
0

I am not aware that either victims or witnesses can be forbidden to speak publicly about a crime.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 04:17 PM
4

Why is he not able to discuss the case publicly? Certainly a prosecutor can't impose that condition on anyone. Who is hiding what, and using what threat or incentive to silence the victim?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 12:48 PM
3

Thank your teacher for recognising the error and correcting it.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 11:48 AM
4

Why didn't you go to a men's domestic violence shelter and get housing, mental health services, employment assistance, and lots of other help?
/r/MensRights30/01/13 04:35 AM
4

He did not try to skip her in line. He merely spoke to the clerk. The woman was certainly egging him on and making comments. Would he have been justified if he had pepper sprayed her? Richard Pryor was heckled to a greater extent. Would you have advocated him pepper spraying an audience member. Lenny Bruce egged on audience members by calling them niggers and kikes. Would they have been justified in pepper spraying him?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:50 PM
4

How about homeless schizophrenic people that ask me for change? Can I pepper spray them? How about my wife? If we have an argument that rises to the level of creepy and annoying, are you okay with pepper spraying her. How about those Jr. High kids at the mall that want to tell me about Jesus? Would you have pity for them if I pepper sprayed them? Can you be more specific about what creepy and annoying words rise to the level of deserving to be attacked? If one is creepy and annoying, but not to …
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:49 PM
9

Had the roles been reversed, a man spraying a woman with mace, would you see it differently?
/r/MensRights25/01/13 04:36 PM
1

Any particular interest group focuses on missions relevant to their own actions. True. The tradgedy is that women define themselves as women, rather than as people. If they didn't, there would be no feminism, and they would take up the interests of their sons as well as their daughters. They would regard themselves as a relevant interest group and lobby for equality with or without a selective service instead of lobbying aggressively to preserve and extend inequities, as has been the case for ge…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 12:08 PM
1

Actually, feminists are not in favor of equality in the selective service. Ms. Magazine has never called for the registration of women, except for alternative service. NOW issued one statement in a report on an annual board meeting in the 70's endorsing equality, took no further action, and later retracted the statement. League of Women Voters has never called for equality. AAUW has never called for equality No feminist legislator has every introduced a bill in Congress that would create equalit…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 06:07 AM
0

I am aware of the physiological differences between men and women. I assert that waist to hip ratios do not bear on women's ability to serve in combat. Nor does the fact that women have less body hair. What does influence a woman's ability to serve in combat is her strength. In this area, there are differences between men and women, but those differences are not great enough to prevent women from serving in combat. Your article confirms this position: The smaller difference in lower body strengt…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:51 PM
1

Women and men are not equal in any military in the world. Men always have greater risk, burden, sacrifice, and responsibility. Only the rewards are shared equally.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:53 PM
0

if she had enlisted, she would not have been allowed in a combat position in the army. And now we have expanded her opportunity to serve, but not her duty to serve in combat. Women will continue to have equal opportunity and less responsibility.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:51 PM
1

These differences are exaggerated. Women prove to be 90% as strong as men, and the distribution follows a similar curve. This means that 10% of women are weaker than all men, 10% of men are stronger than all women, and 80% are equal. 90% of women can do any job a man can do. It is not important that women be as strong as men, it is only important that they are strong enough to do the job. We don't restrict combat jobs to the strongest men, so women don't need to be as strong as the strongest me.…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:49 PM
1

It should be noted that this action does not require women to serve in combat, it merely gives those who wish to do so more opportunity. Men will still have a duty perform the most dangerous combat occupations if they are ordered to do so, whether they want to or not. Women may volunteer for some or all of these occupations, but none will be ordered to do so. Equality will be achieved when women are equally as likely to be ordered into combat. That is to say, if there are 1000 vacancies in the i…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:41 PM
3

There's even room for women's rights in men's rights.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:35 PM
3

I hope there is room here for everyone.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 04:20 PM
1

Do you mean, "pretending to know the law?"
/r/MensRights20/01/13 12:17 AM
1

IANAL means "i am not a lawyer" IANAL means you should not assert incorrect and misleading legal opinions. Prefacing misinformation with "IANAL" is meaningless. No woman has ever been convicted of having sex with a man incapacitated by drugs or alcohol in the U.S., regardless of whether she was also incapacitated or not. Misleading people about this, as you have persisted in doing, might lead to one of them committing a crime they would not otherwise have committed. That you got this disinformat…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:43 PM
1

Not knowing someone is incapable of giving consent- like not knowing someone is drunk- would be a defense if the law for that area is when they knowingly have sex with someone without that person's consent and if excessive alcohol renders a person incapable of giving consent. There is no such place. PLEASE stop pretending to be a lawyer.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 11:46 AM
2

They don't cancel each other out- no rape was committed. the person being charged with rape must have actually intended to rape someone if Suzy has just had a bottle of whiskey and Johnny doesn't know Please don't give ill-informed legal opinions on Reddit. Some people will believe you, and it puts them at risk. Please delete your comment.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:55 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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