TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

VersionX Archive

View 0 posts and 65 comments by VersionX 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

Again, so pull it out and let it survive on its own. It won't happen because it is not a viable human life.
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 06:25 PM
1

If by responsibility you mean paying for a kid I didn't choose for 18 years, you're right, I am just as bad as them. Sorry not sorry. Women can lay down financial responsibility by giving the kid up for adoption or what have you. We should be able to surrender our rights and have financial obligation waived as well.
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 04:10 PM
3

That's on her. Guess that's a factor she should consider in making her decision.
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 08:35 AM
1

Not babies, fetuses. They're neither people nor humans. Sorry, we aren't gonna agree
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 02:41 AM
1

Not babies, fetuses. They're neither people nor humans. Sorry, we aren't gonna agree
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 02:41 AM
2

The Mars argument isn't a bad one, but in your analogy, that clump is moving around on its own and not biologically dependent on another life form. If it were, we'd be calling that the life on Mars and notice cells. Either way it doesn't hold true but it is an interesting way of looking at it. And it's probably the most critical thinking-positive way I've seen the other side so far
/r/MGTOW18/05/19 12:05 AM
1

eh, IDK, I'm a guy and it's logic I agree with. And I'm certainly not an apologist for women and I detest feminists. But I still come down on that side of it.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 10:15 PM
2

Sure they can. They won't biologically die just by being removed from the womb. You're talking about post-birth care, not quite the same as one organism being biologically dependent on another.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:45 PM
1

It is a very important distinction though, and I think that isn't getting enough credence in most arguments. I agree, abortion should be legal if the parent doesn't want it. Our resources are strapped enough and we are overpopulated and have an excess of misery enough as it is - we don't need to forcibly add more.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:41 PM
7

That at least is a fair point. Which is why I believe the father, being that he has no say in the child coming to term or not, should be able to lay down his financial responsibilities if he relinquishes his parental rights.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:38 PM
-1

And you telling me it's a human doesn't change the biological reality it is a parasite. And children do not NEED financial support in order to live. They need the stability and resources it brings. A fetus biologically NEEDS the mother's bodily support in order to survive. You're being intentionally difficult because you know your argument is faulty.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:18 PM
3

Maybe. We don't know it will be. And even if it is - WHEN it is, then it is considered a viable sentient human life and has all the protections therein. Not before. That's like saying if a dude got kicked in the balls, he could have someone charged with potentially damaging his future children. It's nonsense. Nothing is viable until it is viable. Not before.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:15 PM
-1

Wrong again. Children are dependents of their parents until 18 because the parents provided for them. There is no biological need for the parents. The children can survive without them. I'm talking about the biological needs of life to survive. A fetus will not survive outside the womb at that stage of development.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:13 PM
0

Yeah and we can survive on our own. We don't require another human life to biologically support us.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 09:00 PM
0

Nope, it's not a child at all - it's a fetus and not a sentient viable human life. It's basically a cluster of developing cells inside her body. We as dudes have no say in how she chooses to handle that cluster of cells, it's her body, not yours.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 08:53 PM
0

We shouldn't have any reproductive rights, we don't have the ability to bring a child to term. Now if you're talking about being able to relinquish parental rights and be absolved of financial responsibility as a result, I agree, that's the way it should be. But it's her body, if she doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy, you have no right to tell her she must.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 08:41 PM
5

While I agree drug use should be legalized, that doesn't take away from your example being one activity being illegal and the other something 99% of the population does. And like anybody I discuss this with, that's where we're going to fundamentally differ. You believe it's a viable human at six weeks, I do not.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 07:46 PM
4

Dude, you're talking about someone shaming you for you making a choice. I'm sorry that happened to you, and without knowing the circumstances I wouldn't take a position on it, but either way, you had the right to make that choice. Them shaming you is theirs. They can feel and say anything they want regarding you, but at the end of the day you made the choice that made sense for you based on your principles, values and wants in this world. That's all that matters.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 07:20 PM
4

Using heroin is a crime. Fucking isn't. Do I really have to spell that out? And again, you're getting stuck on "living human", which a fetus is not. When you can take it out and it can be a viable human life on its own independent of the mother, than sure, by all means take it out and give it up for adoption or raise it on your own. But to say it's a viable human at six weeks from conception is complete and utter horse shit.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 07:17 PM
10

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. And it's straight religious nonsense as well. This kinda shit is why teen pregnancy rates are so high - abstinence-only education doesn't fucking work. And it's also one of the reasons people in high-poverty areas can't get out of it, because they're saddled with this fucking burden. Going "well, shouldn't have done it then!" isn't a solution, and that's what we need. We also need less people in the world, but that's a different, albeit related, argument…
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 07:14 PM
6

Rehab ends after a few months. Kids? Not so much. Also - so we're equating heroin to fucking. Yeah, that's a sensible argument. Totally logical.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 07:00 PM
11

Or keep abortion legal and allow the father to surrender rights and responsibility if he so chooses. This is much more sensible.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:56 PM
4

Wow, you're a sick individual.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:53 PM
4

This guy gets it, thank you for bringing reason into this discussion.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:51 PM
-2

How, exactly?
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:48 PM
7

And what, we're not responsible either? The fault is on both sides in the event of an unplanned pregnancy (unless there's deception involved, which certainly does occur). Fucking may have the possibility of creating kids, but to say what an act is FOR is ridiculous. So if someone doesn't want kids, they should be abstinent? Or use contraception? I agree with the latter, but what if contraception fails? "Oh well, you knew the risk"? Nonsense. This isn't the fucking dark ages.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:47 PM
7

Uh yeah, obviously. What next, are you going to complain that women can biologically have children and men can't? What, we need financial compensation cause we can't make our own kids? That's the kinda attitude that has no place among a group of self-sufficient men.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:45 PM
3

Still not a child. And I'd argue they're taking personal responsibility by aborting. Not taking personal responsibility would be becoming a welfare queen and letting the government support their life. They are opting to be self-sufficient by not doing so. We should be commending them for that. Your analogy doesn't hold water. Killing someone via a DUI is way, way different than getting pregnant. The fact that you'd equate the two shows your principles have you incredibly detached from reality. Y…
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 06:29 PM
6

Cool, then pull it out at six weeks and let it survive if it's a viable human. Oh wait that won't happen? Guess it isn't a viable life then.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:57 PM
6

Still not humans, sorry.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:50 PM
-4

Yeah, of a fetus. Not a human being. Distinct difference.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:45 PM
2

Uh, tough shit? We don't get to carry kids so we don't get to decide what's done with them. We're not entitled to tell a woman what to do with her body. Your free will doesn't come before somebody else's. And don't counter with it's against the fetus' free will, because they don't have one, as they aren't yet people. That said, us men are, however, entitled to what we'll be responsible for, and that is the point. That's the direction change needs to happen in. And being more restrictive on abort…
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:44 PM
4

Show me the likelihood of preemies who are six weeks from conception survive outside the womb. That's the timelines these new laws have put in place, so that's obviously where the bar is being set. They're not even close to fully formed human beings and thus don't get the rights of sentient human life. That's one of the reasons why the previous standard of (I believe) 26 weeks was put in place. Now we're all of a sudden changing that and it's basically only because the US Supreme Court is stacke…
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:43 PM
6

The only thing you said I can agree with is about the government not allowing a man to relinquish financial responsibility if he surrenders parental rights to the child. That absolutely should change. Other than that, nope, you're not going to convince me a fetus is a child with all the rights of a sentient being. You aren't infringing upon anything then because they aren't a viable life form on their own. They're basically parasites who might become humans eventually. So we're basically not eve…
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:38 PM
2

Not at all. There's no child involved, it's a fetus. If it were, you could pull it out and it'd survive. It can't. It isn't viable on its own and isn't a child. Pretty significant distinction.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:30 PM
4

Yeah this is the kind of mentality I had at 10 years old. You're also likely holding the child (if it becomes a child, of course, since in the womb it isn't) accountable by giving it a life in which a parent may not be able to adequately provide for it emotionally, financially, etc. But everybody's gotta be accountable right? FOH.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:18 PM
4

A fetus isn't a child. Stop telling people what choices they can and can't make with their own bodies. You're an outsider, you don't get a say in the life of a non-viable "life" that has nothing to do with you And you're wrong about accountability. Ideally, either party should be able to lay down responsibility. That's what free will is about. Men don't have that option. Likewise, women shouldn't be sentenced to pregnancy just because they become pregnant. Free will.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 04:05 PM
1

Degeneracy? Abortion being described as "kids being torn apart limb from limb in the womb"? Well, welcome to Reddit, Alabama. Please log off.
/r/MGTOW17/05/19 03:54 PM
0

The first reasonable reply in this thread, I agree. Expensive weddings, and weddings in general, are pointless. Everyone else here is just lining up to complain about the pussy they aren't getting by shaming a girl who likes sex as much as they do. It's sad that all they can do is complain about what Chad and Tyrone got and they didn't. Be strong enough in your masculinity to not care about what a girl did before you or you better be fine with her showing the same level of care to your past as w…
/r/MGTOW10/04/19 03:09 PM
23

Meaning only 58% of women wouldn't lie to get pregnant against their husband's wishes? Woof.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:19 PM
1

I think they need a hint.
/r/MensRights08/01/19 02:17 PM
2

Roastie? I don't even know what that term means. In any event, the general consensus seems to be that men and women aren't the same and thus shouldn't be viewed equally. I disagree and have no problem giving women passes (and, conversely, criticism) I give my fellow men. Anything less to me is hypocritical. I'll take my downvotes and move on.
/r/MGTOW12/05/18 02:12 AM
1

No, it really isn't. It you want to judge a woman by what she's done before you, that's your call. I'd rather judge who a person is and treat them accordingly rather than concern myself with who they may have once been. Plus as long as she's healthy, what's the real end game of this? You get a girl who's probably a better fuck. Horrible outcome right? Or god forbid someone tells you through the grapevine someone you know slept with her first. Well boo hoo, you're not the first one to the fucking…
/r/MGTOW11/05/18 11:24 PM
4

So we are fine asking them to hold a standard we never would abide by? Doesn't seem like it holds much water.
/r/MGTOW11/05/18 11:14 PM
0

I subscribe to that sub as well. If you seriously think all women act or even think like the posters in ssc, you're probably the same kind of person who think porn scenarios happen IRL all the time. Not all women are sluts, let alone stupid sluts, much like not all men are bros and Chads. As a guy who occasionally finds himself identifying with MGTOW, this kinda attitude is pretty disappointing.
/r/MGTOW11/05/18 10:03 PM
3

I can't say I agree with that, especially considering I have a high count as well and have no bias towards infidelity. Plus past actions when single have no bearing on relationship behavior.
/r/MGTOW11/05/18 09:53 PM
2

Honestly, I don't see the problem. What business is it of a spouse what their partner has done in the past? Unless they're transmitting you a disease unbeknownst to you, you have no right as a husband or wife to know or approve of all aspects of a person's past. If they've uploaded or shared pics of themselves is as inconsequential as how many previous partners someone has had. If you're willing to shit on a man or woman because they posted on gw or fucked around before settling down, then eithe…
/r/MGTOW11/05/18 05:05 PM
0

No, no I wouldn't. I don't see why you'd think I would have a different opinion based on the genitals of the person making that decision. It's wrong in either respect.
/r/seduction03/05/16 10:48 PM
0

I kinda thought the same thing. You're in the wrong place if you've got standards regarding the past chastity of your partners, IMO.
/r/seduction03/05/16 05:55 PM
-1

Virginity shouldn't play a role either. Something like drug abuse/mental illness is different because that is very likely to crop up in their relationship. Her acting single isn't.
/r/seduction03/05/16 03:09 PM
0

I suppose not. I just think it is sad he'd judge these girls for actions that not only don't involve him, but ones that happened before he even met them.
/r/seduction03/05/16 03:03 PM
-3

It obviously is - I just think it is incredibly childish. In fairness, so have all of mine. I've told them flat out it isn't their business. If they ask if I've slept with a particular person I'll tell them - I won't lie about it. But giving them an quantitative view of my activities before them isn't likely to be beneficial to either of us - and isn't their business - so I wouldn't do so even if I could.
/r/seduction03/05/16 02:55 PM
-1

No, it isn't. What she does (moreover, has done prior to meeting you) while single has zero bearing on how she would be with you in a committed relationship. This viewpoint of yours is exactly why you aren't likely to get the truth. You're basically perpetuating a belief that keeps you further from the (useless) knowledge you claim to want. As someone who works with studies almost all day, that one sounds like complete garbage.
/r/seduction03/05/16 02:52 PM
-6

You have a childish viewpoint and should stop being so judgmental. What a woman does that doesn't involve you is irrelevant and shouldn't play a role in your opinion of them. I personally don't even know my number, thought by mid-college it was childish to keep a running tally. I don't know how anyone can try to define someone else by such a silly metric, especially since you likely will never get the honest figure anyway. Since, you know, it isn't your business.
/r/seduction03/05/16 02:40 PM
1

Doesn't seem to be exactly what she said. The trade-off would be more flexible hours. She's basically saying that she'd love to see dudes in positions that, based on gender, they don't typically go for. Nursing and teaching still pay well enough. My best friend is a teacher here in the states and makes good living doing so. One of my fraternity brothers is a nurse, same deal. I have no issue with this piece.
/r/MensRights22/04/16 03:26 PM
4

Them both being minors means legally one doesn't have the cognitive ability to manipulate another enough to be held accountable for it. That's kinda how shit between two minors in this sense generally works.
/r/MensRights17/03/16 02:45 PM
3

"Confident" is the word for that. "Godmode" just makes you sound like an ass, IMO.
/r/seduction24/10/13 08:16 PM
10

I personally just hated the way it was phrased. Godmode? Really? OP just sounds like a 12-year-old bragging to his friends that he touched a boob, but has to relay it in video game terms for the concept to TRULY hit home. You used a direct line and it worked, awesome. No need to puff your chest about it, especially in gamerspeak. Act like you've been there before.
/r/seduction24/10/13 07:48 PM
1

Does it work the same if you move to one of these states while separated and married in another state?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:08 PM
1

As a new FL resident, this terrified the fuck out of me.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:31 AM
1

I don't doubt it is. It just isn't something you ever see much. It made me think of the Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yoekl song. "Most folk'll never lose a toe/eat a skunk, but then again some folk'll..." Yes, that's the first place my brain went. Maybe I watch too much Simpsons.
/r/seduction03/06/13 05:28 PM
2

This headline has the weirdest contraction ever.
/r/seduction03/06/13 02:29 PM
20

Option A: stick dick in crazy Option B: stick dick in "meh" Unfun choices, these.
/r/seduction26/02/13 01:12 AM
58

this is so very, unfortunately true.
/r/seduction25/02/13 06:18 PM
1

Yeah, I think this is more a "for funsies" thing. As a big fan of the show, I'd love to try it, but I tend to just go for the easier route. I am sad to see, however, that it doesn't work 67% of the time. Poor Mitch. Following a false ideology AND his FF QB separated his shoulder. :(
/r/seduction03/11/12 04:24 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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