TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ValAichi Archive

View 0 posts and 39 comments by ValAichi 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)
0

Yeah, exactly. Look at Somalia.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/11/17 04:04 AM
-1

If it is, it will be immediately dismissed or the plaintiffs will be made to pay for defense fees and court costs. If it isn't, then isn't it better to determine whether this man is innocent on a preponderance of evidence or not?
/r/MensRights07/11/17 07:49 PM
0

The Incident at hand, was one instance. Nope: "In a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, the women allege they were each sexually assaulted at knife point by Henry between May 1981 and June 1982." The original conviction was for ten counts of sexual assault, against eight different women, at various different dates. I'm neither concern trolling, nor pushing a narrative, nor failing to do any research. I came across this thread in all, thought there must be more to it than presented, and it turns…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 07:30 PM
-5

There is eight different cases. Was he found innocent in all of them? (Ie, was there this DNA evidence in all of them?) The articles don't say, but they do say that only five women are suing him. It is possible that he was falsely convicted of one or more cases, but is guilty of these other ones.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 06:49 PM
-7

Then they will lose this case, unless there is evidence they acted together or similar. How about rather than speculating, you just trust the justice system to do its job? If they want to sue this man, that is their right, and now they have to prove their case. If they can, they will win - and should. If they can't, they will lose - and should. To me, that seems perfectly fine.
/r/MensRights07/11/17 05:32 PM
-10

It's worth mentioning there are different standards of proof. Criminal is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, civil is balance of propabilities. It's possible he did it but something was wrong with his first trial that meant he has now been aquited. For a different example, I'm sure none of you would object to the fact that OJ Simpson was sued after being found not guilty in criminal court?
/r/MensRights07/11/17 02:38 PM
2

And based on the proven effects of alcohol, I believe they can effectively be declared temporarily incompetent. Fortunately for me and society as a whole, the general consensus is that I'm right, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:31 PM
2

You keep with the strawmen. I'm saying drunk people, not just a single gender, should be, to a certain extent, in certain situations, treated like children.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:21 PM
2

I think drunk people have reduced capacity to consent, regardless of gender. I also think they have slightly more than a child, but now we're getting into technicalities that have reason behind them but aren't really relevant here, so let's just say I think they have the same so you can get on with your point, preferably without more strawmen.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:12 PM
2

More information needed for scenario one. She'll probably be drunk, he might be, but we can't tell from the available info. Scenario 2 remains the same. Statutory rape, he's probably sober. In any case, I can see you're digging for fringe cases to call out "gotcha" Sorry, not going to work. For one, fringe cases don't invalidate the entire system, and two, they already have reasonable solutions. In the one your approaching, it would be a complicated legal case determining his capacity at the tim…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 09:02 PM
2

Scenario 1 neither will be drunk (probably), so no issue. Scenario 2, statutory rape depending on the exact age established for consent in that jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 08:44 PM
2

Nice strawman. That's not what I said or what I implied, and you know it. If you want a reasoned and honest discussion, then let's have one, but it doesn't seem like you do.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 08:04 PM
2

That's clearly not the case. We don't allow children to consent, for instance, and personally I see that as a very good thing.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 07:54 PM
2

Because this topic isn't about that, it is about whether someone can consent when their ability to consent is inhibited.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 07:31 PM
0

So here are two articles by reasonably journalistic sources The Atlantic and Slate. They both state that females are greatly under reported as rapists. They go into nuanced discussion about what would keep men from reporting, about how laws were not even around that protected men, and how female on male rape wasn't even a legal thing, among other issues. And even those articles agreed that the overwhelming number of rapes are by men. Furthermore, hardly justifies calling me a hateful idiot, give…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 06:14 PM
2

That, while an issue, isn't relevant to the topic at hand.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:48 PM
1

So I'm the one being hateful, not the one calling people disagreeing with them idiots? (And, to be frank, my position is the position held by most nations and, probably, most individuals in the world. If I'm an idiots for holding these positions...) In any case, I'm pretty curious how I'm vilifying anyone, but I'm also pretty sure I'm getting tired of conversing on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:42 PM
2

Well then, don't get drunk. Just because you don't feel you need this protection doesn't mean others don't.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:38 PM
1

So you're Russia, not Saudi Arabia. Good to know.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:30 PM
2

Then perhaps find someone to have sex with that is able to consent. I'm sorry that you find it so hard to find someone willing to have sex with you.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:29 PM
1

So you're saying others are unable to realize "Oh, they're drunk. Lets just get their number and not have sex with them"? Don't drink if you can't handle yourself Being more susceptible to pressure isn't the same thing as being unable to handle yourself. Seriously, what is so difficult with waiting till someone is sober before you have sex with them? Isn't it best to make sure that everyone is a willing and eager participant?
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:46 PM
2

And thus application of the law needs to be changed, not the law itself. This law protects people from being taken advantage of, from being raped, while drunk, through their reduced decision making ability, and that should not change, even if the application of the law is currently flawed.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:36 PM
0

Lets not pretend those are the same things. One, the drink driving, is you impacting others; you taking the risk of taking the rights to life and body away from others. The other, sexual encounters without the ability to consent, is others taking rights to body away from you. And how are you punishing others? By not letting them take advantage of drunk people? Sounds like punishing people by not letting them rape people, which, to be very frank, is a 'punishment' I am in full support of.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:33 PM
1

For posting on a subreddit like this and expecting any other response? You're probably right.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:31 PM
1

Not only word, but on other evidence that turned out to be misleading or wrong or whatever.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:30 PM
2

No. She needs to prove she didn't give it. Which could be as simply as him being stupid enough to admit to a cop that she didn't say yes, but usually it's a lot more complicated than that.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:29 PM
1

It's overwhelmingly women because the overwhelming number of rapes are by men, even excluding rapes where the reason it is rape in inability to consent. It's an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. That doesn't mean everything is peachy; for instance, men do report rapes at an even lower rate than women do, but women are still raped at far higher rates than men.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:28 PM
-6

A link to a google search, which in turn referenced a bunch of forums and reddit itself. I'm sorry, but that really doesn't prove anything; they're not reliable sources, and to be honest I'm not interested in going through them till I find one that is, if I find one that is. False accusations which are rarely punished in any way at all. It's a hard balance to strike. Go to far and you'll dissuade real reports of rape by people already scared to come forward. Perhaps the current balance isn't rig…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 04:24 PM
4

Women are smart, strong, capable people and they have the power and the right to have their decisions be taken seriously. It's not just women, it's men as well. And we are taking both genders decisions seriously, we are just recognizing when their decision making capabilities are impaired. If someone wants to have sex, good for them, but the law is there to ensure that they, male or female, are not being taken advantage of due to reduced capability. Personally, I don't see the issue there.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:35 PM
-3

You don't get to chose if I like to have fun when drunk You see 'fun', I see potential rape. Just because you might make the same decisions when sober or drunk doesn't mean everyone does. Alcohol has a proven ability to reduce one's intelligence and decision making capability, and that means that someone is in a position where they can be taken advantage of by other people. The law is there to protect them, to allow them to have fun and get drunk, without having to fear being taken advantage, an…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:31 PM
0

You won't ever see a man convicted of rape when the only evidence is her claim that he initiated while they were both drunk. There needs to be far more evidence than this.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:24 PM
-14

Much like men being the ones who get arrested in any kind of domestic dispute unless there is direct evidence to contrary, it is always assumed men are the initiating party. True, kindof, but it still needs to be proven in a court of law. You won't see a man convicted of raping a women while they are both drunk when the only evidence is she claiming he initiated. I'm sure you've seen the many many headlines people post here, that include things like 'Man passes out and woman gives him a blowjob,…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:23 PM
6

As for how it's relevant: It's clear that this is what they're aiming for in actual law too Source? Furthermore, 'they' (whoever the hell they are) haven't managed this yet, and implying that they have is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:09 PM
1

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=36845
/r/MensRights20/07/17 02:08 PM
-2

Assuming you're discussing the policies of various universities in regards to accusations of sexual assault or rape, I have little knowledge on the topic and thus cannot dispute or agree with you, but I'm not sure how it is relevant here given the topic of discussion, and equating it to actual laws is disingenuous.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 01:06 PM
-5

Doesn't need to. She would need to prove that he initiated; that's what presumption of innocence means.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 12:40 PM
-22

The difference is you might have made a decision you would not when sober, and someone took advantage of you through that. And no, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility, but it can reduce it. It's obviously can't be an excuse to get away with a crime, because otherwise people would use it to get away with crimes they decided to commit when sober, but that's irrelevant when it comes to matters like sex or contracts. Is it not better to make sure all parties agree to something when they are ful…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 12:38 PM
-4

Nope, that's not the case. The initiating party is held as being guilty in those cases, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights20/07/17 12:20 PM
-36

It doesn't work like this. In this case, the initiating party - male or female - is held to be responsible. If only one party is drunk, then whoever is sober is at fault, regardless of gender or who initiated, is at fault. And there are a reason for these laws; they're not to allow people 'revenge' for their regretted 'decisions', they are to prevent anyone - male or female - from taking advantage of someone with reduced capability for rational decision. Is a contract signed when drunk valid? Of…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 12:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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