TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Vancha Archive

View 0 posts and 109 comments by Vancha 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)
3

It's a lot easier to get circumcised when you're older than get uncircumcised...which is impossible. Speaking of having lost out on something and not knowing how awesome it could be, how do you know that having a foreskin isn't more awesome?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 06:30 PM
3

Sure, but sometimes there isn't always a father on the grid, either because their whereabouts are unknown or they passed away. Plenty of women have to make the decision about whether to continue a pregnancy or not knowing there's no one who'll be legally obligated to share the financial burden.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:06 PM
1

Once we get to the point where robots can replace people in relationships, they'll also probably be doing most of the work already.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/16 06:07 PM
0

Once "this" follows the natural progression and becomes essentially your perfect partner, there won't be guys that don't want this, nor will there be women who could compete with it. As you say though, they wouldn't want to. They'll be too busy with their manbots.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/16 03:08 PM
4

I think you might be purposefully being a little obtuse. It's pretty obvious they're advocating the same length sentence to someone who accused someone falsely of a crime as someone who committed that crime. I believe there are places where they sterilize child molesters, but they aren't suggesting people who falsely accuse others of being kiddy fiddlers should be sterilized. Personally I'd refine it to personal victimhood. If I falsely claim to have been assaulted, I get the same length sentenc…
/r/MensRights12/10/15 09:28 AM
4

The parallel of that would be raping someone who falsely accused someone else of raping them. Falsely accusing someone of murder would be a crime of having someone banished from society for the length of a murder sentence, so the punishment would be banishment from society for that length of time, but even then it's not quite parallel because false rape accusations come from pretend rape victims, you can't have a false murder accusation from from pretend murder victims.
/r/MensRights12/10/15 09:05 AM
1

What if you couldn't even tell they were sexbots? Putting aside the possibility of non-human hair, eye and skin colours, what if they could carry a casual conversation on par with a human with bad social skills?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/15 01:18 AM
1

Only at Wimbledon, and that's the problem, for reasons we've already gone through.
/r/PussyPass02/07/15 06:45 PM
1

It is to an extent, in terms of mental and physical endurance, but no one's arguing about that...I mean, that has no bearing on what they're being paid to do or whether they deserve to be paid more for doing more of it.
/r/PussyPass02/07/15 05:01 PM
3

I think you've got that the wrong way around. They are being paid for how they perform during those 3/5 sets, otherwise you would have people who had performed worse during them but played more tennis/put in more work being given more money. Ideally they'd be paid for the work/skill-level, but realistically it's purely based on how well they do in that match (hence why the amount they get paid is based purely on whether they win or not).
/r/PussyPass02/07/15 04:15 PM
2

You don't even need to throw the world "male" in there. I believe that tennis players deserve to earn more money by playing two extra sets. They aren't being paid for how much tennis they've played in their lives, or the work they've put in beforehand, they're being paid for how they perform during those 3 or 5 sets. There are players who reach the final having had to play long, hard games and face an opponent who reached the final relatively unchallenged. Now, even if that opponent is generally…
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 04:51 PM
3

Except they are paid for those 90 minutes. They practice so that they're able to get paid for those 90 minutes, but those 90 minutes are undoubtedly the only thing they're paid for. They don't get paid for their skill, or their practice, or their dedication. They get paid purely for how well they do in those 90 minutes. You could have the most skilled, practiced, dedicated player in the world, but if they don't perform during those 90 minute games, they ain't getting squat.
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 03:45 PM
9

This thread is talking about Wimbledon. Where Wimbledon is concerned, they get equal prize money. Fact is, men should be getting heat breaks and women should be playing best-of-fives.
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 03:36 PM
11

The judges gave you bonus points for the landing, because those are some incredible mental gymnastics you're practicing there.
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 03:33 PM
10

It's the natural conclusion of being paid for years of intensive training and dedication than for their success during a few sets of tennis in a tournament.
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 01:54 PM
16

If that's true then there's a lot of tennis players who aren't being paid nearly as much as they should be and a lot of tennis tournaments being arbitrarily played.
/r/PussyPass01/07/15 01:35 PM
4

You've asked if I'm offended and then say I can ignore you all I like. If you aren't making strawman arguments then you're simply not reading what I'm saying. Your attitude is counter-productive to what you're trying to achieve. If you actually care about convincing people (not me, but others) that such posts are making this sub is a joke, you need to stop throwing a tantrum or they (they - not me) won't take any notice of you.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 06:01 PM
3

If me calling out a bunch of pimple faced high school kids for saying stupid shit that gets this sub labeled as a joke is too offensive for you Now who's making strawmen arguments? You can dig your hole as deep as you like for all I care. What I'm saying is, the way you're acting directly contradicts the very thing you're trying to achieve. You aren't going to "knock some sense" into anybody, you're going to make people ignore you on account of sounding like the very "pimple-faced high school ki…
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:44 PM
6

The problem isn't your argument, it's your attitude. Playground insults like yours will go far further toward stopping people taking this sub seriously than an upvoted questionable comment.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:38 PM
7

You shouldn't call other people "kid" when acting so much like a child.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 05:26 PM
1

I know there's a study that is oft-cited for demonstrating a pay-gap, which a lot of MRAs criticise for supposedly failing to make a distinction between full-time and part-time employees (more women work part-time to look after kids or whatever, thus get paid less), but I doubt you'd find many MRAs that'd argue women should get paid less for the same job, assuming equal performance and equal hours etc.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 09:50 AM
9

In response to 2 and 3... MRM should focus on gay marriage Trangender men who become pregnant British judge suspended for gay parents views (downvoted) Does MRM support trans males? Gay and transgender men get a fair amount of representation, but they both have their own movements, both I'd argue with more exposure than mens rights. As far as the animosity toward feminists, the reality is that it's directed primarily at a minority that have misrepresented and cherry-picked the worst examples of …
/r/MensRights24/01/15 02:42 PM
3

On what grounds and in what jurisdiction? Remember, rape is a term of law. I'm guessing this is a semantic game where you'd say if there was no law, it wouldn't be rape, it'd be forcing sex upon someone?
/r/MensRights29/11/14 08:44 AM
3

No it's not. I'm guessing "A lot" got autocorrected to "Apt".
/r/MensRights28/11/14 10:45 AM
1

So then they could have a section aimed towards dads who lets moms do all the work (as they did here) and then a section aimed towards dads who are left to do all the work. The problem here is the assumption being made. Though to be honest, "this is not the proper avenue for this" is the right conclusion. It's not their place to tell the fathers of their students that they should be doing more at home. Not to mention, what of single fathers? I think I'd be more pissed off reading this as a singl…
/r/MensRights01/10/14 03:24 PM
4

If you're going to quibble, then it's not pedophilia because pedophilia is the attraction. The crime here is child rape (which isn't even contingent on pedophilia/ephebephilia/whateverthefuckelse).
/r/MensRights06/09/14 07:54 PM
9

An alternative to "speaking to the girl's parents" is not exclusively "life in prison".
/r/PussyPass09/07/14 06:30 AM
1

There's a platform here for you, too. It's just up to you whether you use it to get your voice out there. I can't help but feel that'd be more productive than simply nodding in disapproval at the worst aspects of our subreddit over at AMR, which is more reactionary to MR than MR is to feminism.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 06:10 AM
6

And because the very worst aspects of this sub are probably all he's been exposed to via the subreddits he visits, so he has a warped perception of what this subreddit's like.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 08:23 AM
1

You replied to the part of my post that was rendered irrelevant on account of the invalid parallel. Someone who believes consent requires a verbal "yes" and has consensual sex minus that verbal "yes" isn't going to feel the same way as an actual rape victim, for reasons explained in the edit of my last comment. That's not an assumption, it's reality. I could redefine rape as standing too close to me, but that's not going to make people standing in close proximity to me as unpleasant or harmful a…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:06 PM
2

I don't know. I'd like to think said students would be able to realize their would-be victim wasn't okay with what was going on, but either way that's not a valid parallel. If someone has consensual sex without it fitting their mistaken definition of consent, they're far more likely to be okay with it than the victim of someone who raped them because they didn't know they were raping them. Edit (again): Put it this way - It's not being a victim of "rape" that constitutes harm, it's being a victi…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 01:16 AM
2

Except it is. If she'd said "Hey class, some time in your lives you may decide you want to falsely accuse someone of rape and I intend to show you how best to go about it", it'd be accurate. As it is, teaching kids her fucked up definition of consent isn't going to make anyone falsely accuse someone of rape who wouldn't otherwise have done so. No one's going to get fucked willingly and in the morning think "Hmm, I didn't verbally say the word "yes" last night and I remember Ms Bakely saying that…
/r/MensRights27/04/14 12:42 AM
15

Thank you. The comments may have been misguided (now they're straight-up fake), but the site knew exactly what they were publishing.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 06:08 PM
14

Can you imagine someone using that defense in court? "I didn't kill him your honour. He just happened to have a heart attack while my fists were hitting his face."
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:33 PM
2

I'm going to come into this clusterfuck of a conversation thread at the top, to try and avoid some of the bullshit... Women have the option, post-conception, pre-birth, to avoid the financial responsibility that would come from raising a child. It's not unusual for women to have abortions because they couldn't financially support a child. Post-conception, pre-birth, women have the option to avoid 18 years of financial drain. Men don't. That's neither equal nor fair.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:36 PM
8

For a moment I was thinking of Ted Bundy and I was so confused.
/r/TheRedPill23/01/14 07:26 PM
10

I'm pretty sure this is natural selection of some kind. Once you get to her level of stupidity, you somehow come to the idea that sex is bad and thus never procreate.
/r/TheRedPill02/01/14 05:29 PM
8

I think CS Lewis said it best. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in…
/r/TheRedPill15/12/13 10:50 PM
3

I was going to point this out, but I couldn't tell if that was the point or if OP just found the results disgusting in general. Obviously these kinds of things get heavily edited, but it really seemed as if it was the guys were far more on board with what she was doing. The women ridiculed it, told him to see a doctor with her or told him flat out what she did (eventually), but the guys covered for her, or offered him a chip. Are we our own worst enemy?
/r/MensRights15/12/13 02:35 PM
2

As someone said further up, they exist to create persecution complexes and outrage for the sake of selling papers. A lot of people come here because they have been victimized (legitimately) or outraged (rightfully) and so at first glance they can seem like a sympathetic ally. In reality they couldn't give a damn, they're just pandering to us.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 11:09 AM
0

The core arguments that "slut walks" consist of obviously don't equate to willfully playing in traffic, it's just a stupid image. It's not meant to be serious and I don't think it's even meant to be satirical, but rather just humourous (as to whether it's succeeded at that or not is up to you).
/r/MensRights07/12/13 03:24 PM
3

His "internalized misogyny" argument still works with or without the neckbeard comment (and by "works" I don't mean it's a good argument), so it wasn't an ad hominem, it was just insulting. Not that that makes him any less deserving of disrespect, I'm just being picky.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 05:27 PM
1

Sorry, I meant what makes you think this is a sentiment just for men? Following your logic, any time a man gives advice to another man, that advice should be assumed to be applicable only to men unless stated otherwise. That makes zero sense to me. As far as surrendering his will and priorities, I have to wonder if we're reading the same article.
/r/TheRedPill10/11/13 08:09 AM
2

Marriage isn't for you. You don't marry to make yourself happy, you marry to make someone else happy. More than that, your marriage isn't for yourself, you're marrying for a family. Not just for the in-laws and all of that nonsense, but for your future children. Who do you want to help you raise them? Who do you want to influence them? Marriage isn't for you. It's not about you. Marriage is about the person you married. What makes you think this is a sentiment for men? What is it that indicates …
/r/TheRedPill06/11/13 07:26 AM
17

I think you're confusing marriage with "the wedding". There may be a horde of women online that completely miss the point of the article, but it's intended to go both ways, hence the reason he brings up the example of his wife's outpouring of love despite his supposed callousness. Yes, weddings are certainly more about making women feel like princesses, but the article's about the marriage that comes afterwards.
/r/TheRedPill04/11/13 07:31 PM
2

Well I think that's their point (not that I agree with it). They consider MRA's as not having any legitimate purpose because the things we object to (like this) are things that everyone, regardless of being an MRA, would object to.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 06:58 PM
0

There really isn't, but yes, this sub can be hugely illogical. The problem is, this sub has a combination of terrible reading comprehension, an immense persecution complex and the most desperate desperation to be offended. Now, those of us who can read and have a level head know precisely what you said, but let me translate your post as most of this sub read it... Your first paragraph argued with a post supporting men and you supported women in the same paragraph. This has caused the aforementio…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 12:35 PM
-4

Wow. You can admit to being the male victim of a false-rape claim and still get down-votes for saying rape is difficult to prove? If anyone would like to enlighten me as to how you prove rape occurred, please do.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:38 PM
-7

Seriously. There are enough real-world examples to make the point...Staged videos achieve nothing.
/r/TheRedPill15/10/13 05:36 PM
1

Are you starting your lines with a lot of spaces for whatever reason?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:21 AM
2

It was only the fact that a woman or two came out claiming to have been raped by Jimmy Saville that lead to a host of other victims coming out and admitting that they too had been victims. Putting the name out there leads to additional witnesses/victims coming forward. The problem here isn't the lack of anonymity, but the assumption of guilt without it being proven. Providing anonymity as protection would be skirting the problem in order to fight a symptom and simply result in different victims.…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:37 AM
1

The only thing I'm insulted by is how much you write in bloody code. I keep having to scroll to see what you've written! :P If the genders had been reversed, I'd have asked for exactly the same thing...and you're right, people would probably have made the same mistake. However, I don't think the fact that others would have made the same mistake excuses it. Whether it's one person that gets it wrong or one thousand, it's still just as illogical...just as unreasonable.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 02:07 AM
1

No different from when some feminists who were harmed by men treat every member of the male population with scorn. Yeah it is. Said feminists would be in the wrong, but understandably so. The same would go for men who'd been abused by women, but we aren't talking about that. I have no doubt that if feminists started attacking each other because of assumptions they'd formed based on reading news stories, the people here would mock them relentlessly. It IS used for excuses and lenient sentences wh…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 01:24 AM
1

Read my replies to other people. I'm done with you. Go advocate.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:18 AM
1

And this itself is gaslighting If you think what you quoted qualifies as mental abuse, you have never encountered mental abuse. you even rejected my compromise of using a neutral term, "background", to describe what you were trying to achieve. Fantasy. But instead of describing your own intentions, you decide to tell me what my intentions are Hypocrisy. In other words, because everybody disagrees with me and considers me a twat, I'm going to assume they are all wrong and even the community surro…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 03:02 AM
1

I know gaslighting is Reddit's new favourite term to use and abuse, but it doesn't apply. You already know I consider context to be useful in ways other than altering perspective/shifting blame (and if you weren't trying so hard to argue, I think you'd agree that it can be). You no longer have any reason to misconstrue my original comment. When people's emotions are so high that it's evidently impeding their reasoning ability and rationality, then yes, I can tell people to calm down and do somet…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 01:47 AM
1

The responses you're getting here are from people who have experienced and read far too many news stories and court cases on female perpetrators where context was used as justification for a slap on the wrist at best or probation at worst while male perpetrators are refused the luxary in court and in the news. To be blunt, they're sick and tired of it. I get that. The problem isn't that they're used to it, it's that they're now assuming it when it isn't being said and as a result end up turning …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:03 PM
1

Well no shit I've been grousing. That's what this subreddit is apparently for. No one cares to bring awareness, solve problems or educate themselves or others. You all just sit here, fuming at linked injustices and whining about those and feminists. You purposefully contort the context of "context" just so you get to whine at someone, even when that someone agrees with you (well, apart from you willingly wallowing in ignorance). It's just too fucking silly not to do a little grousing.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:06 PM
1

That's what I'm saying you goddamn dolt. Whether it's in context to someone being loud and garish (who is then sexually assaulted), or whether it's in context to someone quietly minding their own business (who is then sexually assaulted), she is equally at fault in both contexts. What she did is just as bad in both contexts (real-world definition of contexts). I mean fuck, I give you two contexts and then I literally said the words "equally at fault in both". How in the shit do you manage to mis…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:51 AM
1

Are you trolling me? How does describing someone as quietly minding their own business imply that they're more or less deserving of being sexually assaulted?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 01:31 AM
1

The only way they could see that as my destination is if they equate desiring context with trying to excuse something. That equation is what their brain should be regarding as an unintended destination (but apparently isn't). i'm tired of arguing with you, why don't we agree to disagree and settle it? Sure. As with the other guy, believe what you like.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:34 AM
1

You're telling me what my motivations were? Well shit, why stop at trying to excuse her actions? Why not tell me that I think he deserved to be sexually assaulted, raped and more? and she decided to show him up? Guess what? If she decided to show him up, she's still in the wrong. Nowhere did I imply that if she was showing him up that she was any less in the wrong. In fact I made a point of saying she would be. You're right about one thing though. I was using the real-world definition of context…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 12:03 AM
1

You aren't reading what I'm saying. What you quoted was in context to your destination, not mine.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:49 PM
1

Does it matter whether or not a 13 year old girl shouts random things at an adult before he starts ripping her clothes off and dry-humping her to the cheers of onlookers on the train? Yes, it matters. The fact that it matters, however, does not make an adult ripping a 13-year-old's clothes off any less wrong. Context doesn't have to alter perspective in order to matter and the fact that so many people apparently thinks it does is the huge leap of logic that's baffles me so. What on earth goes on…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 10:58 PM
1

There is almost ZERO instances in which this boy could have been reasonably 'asking for it' and yet you are asking for added context to prove he was not. Alright, lets break this down and take it step by step, because I'm evidently not explaining this in a way you can understand. There is almost ZERO instances in which this boy could have been reasonably 'asking for it' Correct. you are asking for added context Correct. you are asking for added context to prove he was not (asking for it). Now th…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:02 PM
1

My assumptions? What assumptions? You're making assumptions that I'm trying to put blame on this boy and I have no idea why you're jumping to such a conclusion. Knowing more about situations we want to avoid? That matters. The usefulness of context doesn't just lie in altering perspective... Edit: "People" are so desperate to be offended and victimized, that they've decided to read something in my comment that isn't there. They're taking a stand against something that just...isn't there. They're…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:36 PM
1

Well at least someone here has some sense. I understand what people think my comment said, but I'm damned if I can figure out how the fuck they think it said it. As I said to someone else here, the fact that people somehow made the leap from what I said to "victim blaming" displays a remarkable desire to take offense at the slightest opportunity. I understand why this place has the reputation it does now. I - an MRA that supports what's going on here (or what I thought was going on here) - make …
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:37 AM
1

Please elucidate exactly where I implied the context would change anything. In fact, I'd love it if you elucidated how you could read what I said and somehow jump to the conclusion that I thought "maybe he wanted it" or "it could have been in good fun". What on earth goes on in someones head that they see someone ask for more information about a bad situation and somehow conclude that that must mean they're trying to excuse the guilty party?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:22 AM
1

Well, she didn't rape him, so she's not a rapist. She sexually assaulted him. It's amazing how prevalent making fun of feminists is here while you seem to be just as cavalier with throwing the word rape around. Now, if you'd like to point out where I said - or so much as implied - that the context would make what she did any more or less her business, that'd be great. Context would provide information and knowledge is power. When bad things happen, you want to know as much about why it happened …
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:17 AM
1

Curiosity is one thing, trying to desperately find a way to excuse the woman's behaviour and pin the responsibility on the boy is another. I get that this is why I'm being downvoted but I don't know what the fuck comment all you people are reading. I asked how this scenario came to be and people jump from that to me somehow blaming the victim. A leap of logic that large indicates a level of desire to take offense that I've never seen before.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:10 AM
1

What makes you think that I don't think it's wrong, just because I want to know how this happened?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:06 AM
1

Where did I say he deserved it? Where did I even imply it? I explicitly said she was in the wrong. Twice.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 11:02 AM
-7

If it were like this video and seemed like it was in response to something we didn't have the privilege of witnessing? Yes, I'd be equally as curious as to how the situation came about. Think about it. If we knew how a situation in which a drunk adult came to be rubbing themselves against a 13 year old, maybe such situations could be avoided? Nah. You're right. Fuck questioning things. Lets try and solve our problems while mired in ignorance, because that'll help our cause! Edit: Oh, wait, I see…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:27 AM
-2

Assuming you mean sexual assault rather than rape, then yes, of course. I said in my comment she went too far (then again, that's being downvoted, so I guess people think she should have raped him?)
/r/MensRights07/09/13 11:08 PM
-30

I wish these videos would show context. I mean, this went too far and it looked like it could've gone even further, but what lead up to this point? Did she randomly come up and start rubbing herself against him, or was he shouting across the bus how hard he'd fuck her and she decided to show him up? Edit: Fuck me for my curiosity, right? Edit II: Well shit, I came here from my interest in MRA and find nothing but feminist-hating and people desperate to take offense so they can bathe in it...Can …
/r/MensRights07/09/13 06:33 PM
7

Countercounterpoint: It's not the legal implications of the marriage, it's the legal implications of that marriage ending. I don't think anyone would get married if they expected it to end - and end with the person they love screwing them over legally at that.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:22 PM
7

Ah yes, boys are well known for bragging to their mothers about having sex.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 11:35 AM
6

I find it hard to accept there are people this stupid in the world. When I call you an idiot, an imbecile and a moron, it's not because I feel any less compassionately toward the mentally disabled, despite the fact that those words were created to describe them. Similarly, if I were to call you a humungous bitch, I wouldn't be making a statement on your gender - I'd be telling you you're unlikeable. Words evolve...They aren't forever beholden to their etymology.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 11:53 AM
1

What do I think about these stats? I think they use a lot of words and pretty pictures to say barely anything at all, but even the info I might take at face-value is thrown into doubt by the immensely sensationalist style of it. As it is, I'm pretty sure every single pie-chart on there is irrelevant without context. For example, if the chance of being sentenced to death for the same crime is comparing the total number of men put to death with the total number of women put to death, then not only…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 03:24 PM
6

The problem here isn't exposure (discovering a mutilated creature), it's processing it. There are better ways to help a child deal with "the harsh reality" than just telling them to deal with it.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:07 AM
0

Don't forget the transvestites.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 09:37 PM
1

Why does it matter? Once they're dead, what does it matter that they missed out on 80 years of potential happiness and enjoyment? Give me six months and ill likely be golden. Don't make me regret the time I've spent replying to you.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 06:39 PM
1

Well as I explained to someone in another conversation thread, this is about being in the position of the deceased compared to being in the position of the bereaved, hence my "ultimatum". As for wasted potential, I guess I just don't see it that way. The vast majority of people have no significant potential. Their effect on the world will be negligible within 100 years of their death. It sounds terrible, but I think it applies to soldiers most of all. They fight so the influential don't have to.…
/r/MensRights15/12/12 09:15 PM
1

Maybe you are. They aren't. They're arguing about ways to die. Thank you for being the first person to approach having a logically consistent comment. Which premise are you talking about, though? I've made a few. But again, I'd say that death is easy. When you're dead, you don't care that "oh, I had so much life left to live!" It's tragic, but in regards to the bigger victim, you have one person suffering the worst pain of their lives and another who doesn't feel and doesn't care.
/r/MensRights15/12/12 02:07 PM
0

The people who would rather die than have their SO die are sacrificing themselves to keep their SO alive. I actually tried to avoid this line of discussion in my last comment because you don't seem to be in a position to discuss it. Needless to say, the question of whether you'd rather live or die if your SO died has no relation to the discussion prior to Aminium's comment.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 06:13 PM
-2

Did you even read the picture this thread's about? How is it a false choice when we're talking about the PRIMARY victim in the case of someone dying from breast cancer or someone dying in war? You need to compare being in the position of your SO dying, or BEING the person who dies... The question is, if your SO died, would you rather die too or be alive? Why?! Why is that the question? Amunium brought it up because he failed to comprehend what I'd said quite spectacularly. It's not on me to answ…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 05:08 PM
-3

I'm going to go ahead and guess you aren't married, or have kids. Edit: Also, I have to say, your sentence structure is very confusing. What are you referring to as imprisonment? I also can't read your second sentence after "torture"...It makes no sense.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:51 PM
-2

Jesus christ. I really don't have a hope against logic like this, do I? If the true victims of war are not the dead, then if you die you are not a victim Keep up with the context. It's not that hard. You must have seen the picture this topic's about less than half an hour before you replied to me. The words "true victim" have not been used in this thread of conversation except by you. The picture says "primary victim". WcJessen said "primary victim". Primary victim in this case implying the exis…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:49 PM
-2

Your logic is wrecked. You're saying the dead person is a bigger victim than their loved one because their loved one chooses to endure the pain with the hope that their life is still worth living, rather than commit suicide. I'll ask the same question I asked others. Would you rather be dead, or lose your significant other?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 04:41 PM
-2

How on earth do you get from "being dead is easy" to "it's okay to kill people"?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 03:14 PM
0

You mean it takes effort to be dead?
/r/MensRights13/12/12 02:03 PM
-1

I didn't.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 12:19 PM
0

Why did you include "dead soldier" in that? Plenty of people kill themselves having lost their partner... The obvious answer to such a question though, is that there are still - hopefully - positive experiences to be had in the rest of their life.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:30 AM
0

While that's certainly one of the more tragic consequences of war, I wouldn't say it makes them more of a victim once they're dead. I mean, they chose to put their opportunity to have a life on the line when they signed up. Most people become a soldier understanding that.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:27 AM
2

Which is why you'll notice I included "in the case of a deceased". From that point on, I'd say the victim is the partner.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:24 AM
-1

If you start going down that road, you'll quickly realize that we're all going to die, so what's the point anyway? Okay, let me answer that for you. Dead people lose the ability to enjoy, feel, cry, drink their favorite beverage, love, buttsex, watch their favorite show etc. We living can do all that, and we have the ability to move on. There you go. I hope that helped. Seriously though, you're basically right. We could all die and it'd have no impact on anything. Our existences are pointless. W…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:22 AM
-1

Right. You're talking about a long, drawn out, painful death. Again, you haven't followed what I was saying. Remember, this is about whether the process of dying necessarily trumps losing a loved one. If you read my comment as "It doesn't matter how a soldier dies", out of context, then you're replying to the WRONG thing. Remember that what I said was in response to someone.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:15 AM
0

Again, you aren't following the thread of the conversation. I'm not talking about the ways that soldiers die. That's entirely irrelevant to the context of the conversation. REMEMBER, geodebug brought up the point that being in the process of dying necessarily trumps losing a loved one. I used being shot in the head as an example of a quick process of dying that I'd rather experience than losing a loved one. Why in gods name people thought I would inexplicably change the topic to the best and wor…
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:14 AM
-16

Matters in relation to what? An odd question, I know, but I just want to make sure you're responding to the point at hand and not responding to my comment out of context. Edit: Put simply, when given the choice between the person you love most dying and suffering the loss, or dying in the time it takes for a bullet-in-the-head to kill you, you're saying the way you die matters? You'd choose one option if it was a bullet in the head, and another option if you died in the same amount of time, but …
/r/MensRights12/12/12 11:07 PM
-25

I don't know and it doesn't matter. The point is how long the process of dying is. Do you know the average time it takes for a dying soldier to die?
/r/MensRights12/12/12 10:47 PM
-3

Did you reply to the wrong comment? That doesn't seem to relate to what I said.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 10:43 PM
-16

I don't know, the process of getting shot in the head is pretty quick...I think I'd rather get shot in the head than my significant other, and not purely for selfless reasons.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:27 PM
35

In both cases, I'm inclined to agree in the case of a deceased. Being dead is easy, losing someone isn't. Edit: Holy fuck, the replies I'm getting hurt. PLEASE try and keep in mind the context of what you're replying to. If we can't follow the basic thread of a conversation then there's a serious fucking problem.
/r/MensRights12/12/12 09:08 PM
13

Actually, I'd consider what you're saying to be pretty disrespectful to people who've suffered actual assault. I'm guessing you've never been randomly attacked on the street? I have, and I have a very hard time imagining anyone who'd been a victim of that would give a damn about catcalls by comparison.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 12:53 PM
3

On the changing table.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 07:45 AM
3

Including an /s in this instance would be like posting a joke and explaining the punchline in the same comment. It couldn't have been more obvious without it physically manifesting in front of people's monitors and slapping them in the face.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:40 PM
31

I concur with this so hard.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:41 PM
1

I think you preemptively responded to an implication that wasn't there...Or replied to the wrong comment. One or the other.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:22 AM
2

Out of curiosity, what would warrant interacting with a stranger in your view? Life-saving and clearly-in-distress aside.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 11:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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