TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

VTwinVaper Archive

View 0 posts and 52 comments by VTwinVaper 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)
11

The statute basically says that the child would be considered legally as having been conceived by the actual parents legally, and not by the donor.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 03:09 PM
3

There is already a NC law that does this, although it’s age means it is a bit outdated with its language: 49A-1. Status of child born as a result of artificial insemination. Any child or children born as the result of heterologous artificial insemination shall be considered at law in all respects the same as a naturally conceived legitimate child of the husband and wife requesting and consenting in writing to the use of such technique. (1971, c. 260.)
/r/MensRights01/01/25 03:07 PM
12

Statute 49A-1. Status of child born as a result of artificial insemination. Any child or children born as the result of heterologous artificial insemination shall be considered at law in all respects the same as a naturally conceived legitimate child of the husband and wife requesting and consenting in writing to the use of such technique. (1971, c. 260.) Meaning that the sperm donor would have no legal responsibility or right to the child, and federal marriage court rulings would mandate this a…
/r/MensRights01/01/25 03:06 PM
8

She fits the profile of someone who may have been sexually abused herself in the past. It doesn’t make what she did right but does maybe add some perspective when predicting what lies she may say or do next.
/r/MensRights11/12/24 07:07 PM
3

If it’s a matter of viability, I know a lot of 2 year olds that wouldn’t make it without direct intervention (being fed, being changed, being kept from walking off of cliffs or into swimming pools). “It’s a baby only if it can survive outside the womb” is a bit ridiculous since any human is going to need direct intervention just to survive for their first few years of life. So saying “the second it takes a breath, it’s a baby” is a bit ridiculous as well—and is really just a stretch in an attemp…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:22 PM
3

The “no uterus, no opinion” argument seems to have jumped the shark as soon as admiral Rachel Levine got on MSNBC to talk about how much of a travesty the ruling was. Really their argument is “don’t agree? Then shut up.”
/r/MensRights25/06/22 03:14 PM
1

Or that all men are responsible for war because men supposedly invented it in the past?
/r/MensRights01/04/22 12:45 AM
1

Don’t worry, they’re just a troll who is well out of their depth, and it shows.
/r/MensRights01/04/22 12:42 AM
1

Move along; you’ve been beaten, and we both know it. You believe that the last word claims victory—but nobody cares enough to listen to yours at this point.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 09:32 PM
1

No I get it, everyone has their own reasons why they’re not able to contribute 100%. These priorities and choices are why women statistically make less than their male counterparts: because their level of participation in the workforce and workplace is statistically less. And you have just proven that point for me.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 09:21 PM
1

So what you’re saying is, you chose to have a family and as a result are not participating in the discussion as much as someone who did not choose to do those same things?
/r/MensRights31/03/22 08:07 PM
3

I only am attracted to women. Not men. So by your logic I’m a pig because a person can not control the sex they are born as.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 07:59 PM
2

I think it’s super gross that you would reject someone based on something they had no control over. This is the same argument some trans individuals use to say others should be forced to have sex with/date them. No person on the planet is obligated to be attracted to you.
/r/MensRights31/03/22 07:07 PM
6

I believe the term is “brojob.”
/r/MensRights25/12/21 01:14 PM
6

Yep that’s exactly how it happened in Vietnam. All those brave volunteers making sure the drafted men could happily stay back and do logistics. I hope the sarcasm made it through. In reality about 30% of deaths in Vietnam were draftees. Better than ww2 I guess, where almost 70% of soldiers were drafted men.
/r/MensRights28/09/21 04:06 PM
2

Good thing nobody has ever made a law that ran afoul of that.
/r/MensRights02/08/21 11:59 PM
9

But truth is an absolute...that’s why it’s truth. Stargate even did a movie about it. The problem, like you said, is the that nobody knows what is true—only what they believe to be so.
/r/MensRights20/04/21 04:58 PM
20

“Promiscuity and provocative attire continues to be problematic. I’d like all the women to stand in recognition and apology of the teen pregnancy epidemic.”
/r/MensRights25/03/21 02:15 PM
1

Makes more sense; I hadn’t seen the acronym before.
/r/MensRights11/02/21 04:43 PM
7

NAFALT It’s sad that the “not all females” argument seems to be a valid one in society but the “not all men” one gets the response “if you are offended then you’re clearly the problem.”
/r/MensRights11/02/21 01:05 PM
23

... could easily spin it to "one bad apple." “Hey, all I said is women just need to quit abusing their male partners. If you’re offended by that, then you’re probably an abuser, so don’t come at me with that ‘not all women’ BS.” Would be interesting to see her reaction having the classic and flawed argument turned around on her.
/r/MensRights11/02/21 01:03 PM
14

An option would be to ask “is it okay if I record our classes? I write slowly so it makes it easier to take notes,” and then wait a few days before saying anything controversial so she doesn’t remember the recorder is going.
/r/MensRights11/02/21 12:59 PM
2

Well it seems we’ve talked long enough that the downvoters got bored and stopped reading! Thanks for taking the time to go more in depth on your views. As mentioned already I don’t agree with you. But strangely enough in today’s world (and as I watch the impeachment votes come in by two groups of people who notoriously can’t find common ground) it is refreshing that you were willing to stick around here to clarify your views. I’m a white conservative male, so that alone makes me not worthy to pa…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 09:41 PM
5

One other thing: in your example of the unwed couple...if we accept as logical that the male in that case should be denied the right to adopt, we must also move to separate existing single fathers from their biological children, should we not? If most abuse happens by a relative to begin with, logic would dictate that no single fathers of female children should be allowed to live with their child. Again not my opinion, but just an extension of my understanding of your point of view. Please corre…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 07:30 PM
3

We may have to agree to disagree on this one—but I appreciate your insights even if I’m not in agreement. Question: does your opinion change based on the number of adoptable children vs people who wish to adopt? For example, if there were four times as many children as there were homes willing to adopt them, this would mean more kids stuck in the system and would increase the chance of abuse by foster siblings (something that is already statistically extremely high). In such a case would it tip …
/r/MensRights05/02/20 07:26 PM
3

I question not the effect but the degree. For example, if you are saying that you personally breathed too much exhaust fumes and drank too many BPA water bottles and it caused you to be genderfluid, I can’t say I’m quite on board with you there. If you are saying male testosterone levels are trending downward statistically, then I can get behind that because, well, it is. Not to an extreme degree but enough that it is more than just statistical noise.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 07:16 PM
6

As a medical professional I was required to have a thorough understanding of the endocrine system, as well as the other major body systems. Your statements on how inhaling exhaust fumes and other environmental particles in the air can substantially alter the testosterone and estrogen levels in your body is what I do not agree with. And to me it is not dissimilar to Alex Jones saying that chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 06:50 PM
6

A lot of our policies are based on harm reduction, or even net harm reduction—the idea that a policy may cause new problems, but solves more problems than it causes, creating an overall net reduction in harm. An example may be seat belt laws: some people will absolutely die because they wore their seatbelt, and thus were not thrown clear when ejection would have saved them (burning car, immersion in a lake, etc.). But those cases are outweighed substantially by the amount of people who are saved…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 06:49 PM
3

“It’s safe to assume” are weasel words that mean “I don’t have empirical evidence to back up my opinion yet I want my opinion to be accepted as fact.”
/r/MensRights05/02/20 04:47 PM
6

I hold a master’s degree and two STEM degrees from a top rated research-based university. I serve on the board of a 501c3 that provides domestic violence counseling and batterer intervention classes to men. I like to think of myself as a somewhat intelligent individual, capable of understanding both sides of an argument and empathizing with those who are in someways dissimilar to myself. And I have no clue what the fuck you just said.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 04:45 PM
7

Except those countries will likely bar you from entry due to convictions in your home country. So you’re kinda stuck if you plan to move to most developed countries.
/r/MensRights20/01/20 04:17 PM
2

At least it makes it easy to highlight the fact that Reddit admins don’t care about minorities; they just want people to think they do.
/r/MensRights24/10/19 03:15 AM
2

From their sub rules: "If you are not a female, then we are not interested in your opinion. And don’t bother trying to circumvent the rules by claiming to be a transwoman, because we don’t care. If you have an XY, then your opinions don’t apply." Seems this goes against Reddit's rules of discriminating against the LGBT community.
/r/MensRights23/10/19 09:54 PM
1

You and your lawyer can argue it all you want during your assault trial, but I’d rather not get to that point. At least here in the US cops are quick to arrest if they get a whiff of a possible male/female conflict that has gone physical.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 06:51 PM
24

Except if he makes any physical contact, he is seen as the aggressor. “She hit me and I hit her back” ends one way for men, and that’s in jail with charges. If it were me I would have feigned being unable to hear at all—maybe pulled out a little sign language (if I knew any, and maybe BS it if I didn’t), forcing any bystander to decide which minority they want to virtue signal for.
/r/MensRights03/10/19 01:12 PM
2

If an embryo or fetus could be removed and implanted into someone who wanted it with a decent degree of success then I'd be for that. Until then I think that carrying to term is the necessary choice except if the woman's life would be in danger and abortion were the only safe choice. And I do get that it sucks for the mother because technology has advanced to the point that one consequence of sex can be mitigated, but carrying to term seems to me to be the best of a lot of bad options.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 05:48 PM
2

You're doing that thing where you argue over a very small and insignificant part of a discussion and nothing else because it's the only part you think you can win on, aren't you?
/r/MensRights18/05/19 05:46 PM
4

Oh, I get it now. Yeah your argument still doesn't hold water. You're changing the argument to something you (incorrectly) think you are able to more competently debate against.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 04:07 PM
5

I have a friend in Detroit who spends 30 days in jail every few months because he's too poor to move away and doesn't make enough to cover his child support even if he gives 100% of his earnings, because a judge mandated that he has the ability to make more--yet the judge seems to ignore the fact that being in and out of jail and living in a place with horrible employment opportunities makes it hard to get and keep a decent job. He'll get multiple jobs (whoever will take him on), will give all h…
/r/MensRights18/05/19 04:06 PM
2

It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem. People aren't allowed to just go commit suicide, even if they have "body autonomy" So they absolutely shouldn't be allowed to end the life of another due to a temporary situation (pregnancy). And I upvoted you even though I disagree with you, because Reddit has enough downvoting of opinions the hivemind doesn't agree with.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:58 PM
2

The infintesimally rare "life of the mother" case is the one where I waver. Because if you're in a situation where one person or both will certainly die, each person should have the right to fight for their life. I liken it to being in the ocean while a person who can't swim is clinging to you in a panic. Either you live or you both die--in that situation the swimmer should be able to defend his life to the death without penalty.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:57 PM
4

That's a quite unfortunate consequence of her decision.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:53 PM
2

The bodily autonomy argument is generally the second argument tried in a debate that boils down to "I want to kill my kid, and will come up with various independent arguments to ensure I can do so." The arguments generally are: "It's not actually a human " "Okay then, I have bodily autonomy and a baby restricts that." "Okay then, in cases of rape/incest it should be allowed." My question is, is it restricting your autonomy if you made a conscious decision that had a chance of producing a child? …
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:51 PM
3

This post makes zero sense.
/r/MensRights18/05/19 03:41 PM
35

Emmet Till would have something to say about this...if he hadn't been killed for a false accusation.
/r/MensRights30/09/18 05:09 AM
8

The entire point of this sub is identifying double standards and saying, "it should not be that way."
/r/MensRights08/07/17 03:49 PM
3

Generally they shutdown defense funds for those defendants they judge as being deplorable.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 08:06 PM
1

If someone tried to kiss you and you pulled away, that counts too.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 02:52 PM
1

Yep. Not talking is really the only good option here.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 10:13 AM
1

Yep. "You denied you even had sex. But this proves you did. So were you lying then, or lying now?" See how easy that is to make you look guilty?
/r/MensRights08/04/16 07:48 AM
1

Yep. If he admits the sex, the prosecution gets to skip a few steps. If he simply shuts up and volunteers nothing, the prosecution has to prove that he was there, that sex happened, AND that it was non-consentual. Many people in prison are there because they did the prosecutor's work for them.
/r/MensRights08/04/16 07:47 AM
3

Listen to the advice in /r/legaladvice. They are spot on. Anything you say can easily be used against you, but due to hearsay laws cannot legally be used in your defense. So tell your parents and get them to get you a lawyer right now. And when I say don't talk about it, don't. If you are called into the office tell them you want your parents and your attorney present. If you have a cellphone then download Bambuser. It automatically uploads video and audio to the cloud to make a record of what i…
/r/MensRights08/04/16 07:44 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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