TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Yndrd1984 Archive

View 0 posts and 578 comments by Yndrd1984 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

there is a huge difference between offering sex and trying to buy sex. You can put a child up for adoption, but it is socially unacceptable to go up to a couple and offer to buy their child. See? That's an appropriate response to "How is this different that prostitution?", as opposed to "your argument [is] that these women are whores". I still disagree with the stretched analogy, and 'socially unacceptable' won't cause you to lose a lawsuit, but at least you're addressing the argument rather tha…
/r/MensRights30/05/19 12:49 AM
1

why is this being posted here? You already gave that answer - she was "speaking to men's sexuality and the way it has been prosecuted". For or against, feminist or MRA, you yourself stated that she was talking about men's rights. 'A legal term'. Not legal terms. ... You want to talk about ... Oh, dear lord. Now mentioning something else she did at exactly the same time, but wasn't included in the particular audio clip the OP linked to is out of bounds? I'd better listen again, I might have menti…
/r/MensRights28/05/19 03:45 AM
0

I think you sound like your criteria for who deserves a defense comes down to who has a penis. Yes, that's how brainwashed you are. I call women 'adults', and you think that's sexist. you can defend men's rights without defending every man out there Yes, and when people defend people you don't like without doing anything wrong, you can just get on with your day. Especially when they go on to explain that they don't like him and don't agree with everything he's done, but only want him to pay for …
/r/MensRights28/05/19 03:02 AM
1

What does this video have to do with men's rights? Weirdly enough, if someone is "speaking to men's sexuality and the way it has been prosecuted" then it makes it about men's rights, by definition. I wonder who's describing her argument that way? The video is not a person espousing feminist ideals; it is a woman who is a historian who is speaking to men's sexuality and the way it has been prosecuted. Fine - we'll ignore everything else she's ever done, and even pretend she's attempting to suppor…
/r/MensRights27/05/19 08:41 PM
0

When Quentin Tarantino married, his thought was in part relief she wouldn't have to be used by this guy again at the risk of not working. A guy once worried about something - that proves it! And these stories mostly developed independent of eachother. It was an open secret in Hollywood. You can't have it both ways. your argument of using power to reclaim sexual dominion over women I must have missed that part. Your argument ... these women are whores You're the one who used that word. Take some …
/r/MensRights27/05/19 05:21 PM
2

It seems more like feminist/woman bashing/mocking If you don't understand that these two groups are completely different, that one is an ideology that deserves criticism like any other, and the other is just a demographic group, then you really are in the wrong place. Can I recommend a grade-school near you? To be gleefully happy because a 'woman got owned' is frankly childish and is not what this subreddit is about. Again, it's not that she's a woman, you're going to have to get over the fact t…
/r/MensRights27/05/19 04:32 PM
3

good for NPR, calling out the manipulative language It's good to know you're against manipulative language... forced pregnancy supporters ...when other people do it.
/r/MensRights22/05/19 04:10 AM
1

You'd rather be a low status Saudi woman than a low status Saudi male? I'd rather be alive than dead. So, most Saudi men are dead? No, I'm clearly saying that all of the low status Saudi men are dead. And that all low status Saudi women are immortal. Can't you read???
/r/MensRights14/05/19 07:24 AM
2

You'd rather be a low status Saudi woman than a low status Saudi male? Uh, yes. I'd rather be alive than dead. I'd rather be trapped in a loveless planned marriage than never being able to get married and having every other form of sexual outlet illegal. Though I'd prefer neither, I'd rather have people owe me financial support than the other way around. Though I'd prefer equality, I'd prefer that even advocates for the opposite sex still reflexively saw me as the primary victim rather than the …
/r/MensRights13/05/19 04:47 AM
1

She was pressured by Jewish organisations. As well as Muslim, American, and even Catholic ones.
/r/MensRights10/05/19 10:23 PM
1

Do you mind spelling it out?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 02:48 AM
1

But it really does seem to be what they're thinking. Other than the targets, are #EatTheRich and #KillAllMen that far apart?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 01:55 AM
10

The angry knobgoblin Didn't know you were looking for a nickname. It's perfect for you. :)
/r/MensRights07/05/19 06:12 AM
9

Will this take away the parent’s ability to make the decision? Yes, that's exactly the point. I’m cool with whatever stance anyone has, but I just feel that this is a little much. Some of us feel that individual people own their own lives. That has to include the right to make choices about their own sexuality and religion. I mean, if "men's rights" means anything at all it means a right control our own male body parts, right?
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:28 AM
7

But since this such a string feeling issue for so many people ... Yes, your projection is obvious. You don't have to hit us over the head with it. I mean, there's a reason you bring up a heavily-criticized, out-of-date, bias-ridden policy position - because that's literally the best you've got. In the last seven years none of the AAP's sister organizations moved to align themselves with them, and the AAP didn't even renew the policy. What will you do when another generation of doctors advances t…
/r/MensRights07/05/19 04:17 AM
10

So....this is going to take away the choice to circumcise? Not for adults. Did you read the petition?
/r/MensRights07/05/19 03:15 AM
2

Still, radical feminists exist. ... There are women in radical left wing politics, on their own behalf Exactly. An exception to the general rule exists, and it was trivially easy for you to find an obvious reason for it - in this case the people that support (or pretend to support) women are on the left, skewing the sex ratio the opposite way. the more right wing parties almost invariably have a huge gender imbalance compared to the centre and left parties Yes. What does that tell you about the …
/r/MensRights01/05/19 12:41 AM
4

I'm male. I'm circumcised. I don't care. ... I'm circumcised since I'm Jewish. Four complete irrelevancies. It doesn't disable me from doing anything. If believing that allows you to be OK with being circumcised, I won't disabuse you of it.
/r/MensRights30/04/19 05:28 AM
11

One of the most consistent things about them is they are overwhelmingly male. That's true of most unusual groups - fascists and libertarians, atheists and religious extremists, (self-made) billionaires and the homeless, jocks and nerds, Nobel laureates and suicides, serial killers and people who risk their lives to save others. As a (very, very) rough generalization, men seem to be a bit more diverse than women in quite a few ways. There are a few pretty young women facing the public. If you wan…
/r/MensRights30/04/19 03:09 AM
7

At least we don't have to see her dumb ass on the screen too much. That's not her ass, she has a 'butt double'. Come to think of it, if the character had X minutes, but some of that was CGI, stunt doubles, butt doubles, hand doubles, ... how much screen time is actually the actor?
/r/MensRights26/04/19 06:59 AM
5

it's not trolling to ask for evidence retard Do you have any evidence of that? I don't see any citations. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ this is really just an opinion Good lord, you cracked the code in your first comment! Next time, if it looks like an opinion, just treat it like it's an opinion. poll started on subreddit confirms 3 retards For a sec I thought you might just be an idiot, but then you have to go and prove that you're also a troll. I await you reply with bated breath.
/r/MensRights26/04/19 03:36 AM
7

I love asking for evidence to support a rational argument only to be downvoted by a bunch of retards So you're aware that you're a troll, but think that you can disguise yourself by calling people 'retards'? Radical feminists might not fall for an attempt that lame. Try harder. :)
/r/MensRights25/04/19 11:32 PM
1

Look, nothing I am saying is contentious. Religion is now and has always been a form of societal controll. It makes for a more homogenous society when the people have similar values. ... I have found decision making based off feelings rather than evidence is more the realm of theists and not athiests. Not bad, common ground, ... There is a reason that it is often mentioned that the rule of law in western nations is based on Jewish and Christian values. Because people like to take credit for thin…
/r/MensRights25/04/19 01:25 AM
1

You have indeed driven us far afield, into pointless discussion about what 'really' causes anything. You're the one contesting how the word 'cause' was being used, and the one that brought up "internet outages cause suicide?". The only honest responses I could give to that would be either a rather long-winded philosophical essay about the nature of different types of causation and/or to tell you that you're overreacting to people's ability to use language flexibly while still communicating well.…
/r/MensRights21/04/19 12:47 AM
1

You conflate... I will enforce a wall... The whole point of analogies and comparisons is that they're different, but have something in common. internet outages cause suicide? internet outages cause circumcision? Queue pointless discussion about what 'really' causes anything. An adult must take responsability for their own actions, must do all 'due diligence' that they feel necessary and manage their own standard of 'informed consent' I agree, but if we're going to have laws against 'practicing m…
/r/MensRights20/04/19 05:21 AM
1

Almost as if chugging a few beers and getting behind the wheel amounts to depraved indifference to human life or even attempted murder. Attitudes have certainly changed a lot. Unfortunately the image you put in my head was someone getting into a perfectly understandable accident, say a kid darting between cars gets hit and killed, and the sober driver starts shouting "I swear, ossifer, I never drives sober! (hic)" in an attempt to make things better. it's becoming a standard internet rhetorical …
/r/MensRights19/04/19 05:39 PM
1

No actually i would guess that you were suicidal. Not for over a decade now, but not a bad guess. You are not far off when you suggest suicide derangement syndrome, idk if I'll cop to deranged, but a mild obsession yeah. And I'm sure some of the people here would admit to an obsession about circumcision. If we want to make progress on both we have to at least be able to work with people who are on our own side, even if we're more concerned about our own different areas. This was actually policy …
/r/MensRights19/04/19 08:58 AM
1

... one need not uncritically accept what it says in the article. Sure, but one need not be "on a hair trigger, to the extreme that they are willing to say the suicide was caused by the circumcision" to take an article at face value. There's a difference between suggesting skepticism towards a click-bait headline and accusing anyone and everyone who agrees with it of being credulous and overly emotional. To say that he killed himself because of the circumcision is to justify the suicide. No, tha…
/r/MensRights19/04/19 04:46 AM
1

they are willing to say the suicide was caused by the circumcision Well, that does seem to be the position taken by the article, so it's hard to blame anyone here for that. that they start talking about child abuse in a discussion of an adults decision to undergo elective surgery The article brings up children's rights, and Alex brought up children "never be[ing] able to fully comprehend what has been taken away". The fact that his "informed consent" wasn't that well informed is also relevant to…
/r/MensRights19/04/19 01:23 AM
2

'X derangement syndrome' is a phrase i coined ... it's like 'trump derangement syndrome' or 'Obama derangement syndrome' OK. Next post: I am not mocking anyone At least one of us is very confused.
/r/MensRights18/04/19 06:14 AM
4

Other people want to engage in serious topics, like longevity, discrepancies in education funding or other important topics but the pervert parade just acts as a derail. You're perfectly welcome to post to those threads, or start one of your own. Just because you lack the maturity to handle certain subjects doesn't mean the rest of us can't discuss the subject. Also, shouting "Silence, pervert!" on an anonymous forum seems especially useless. It doesn't really matter to people who are on the fen…
/r/MensRights18/04/19 06:07 AM
5

Some people exist so that parents can pull their misbehaving child aside, point at that person, and say "Do you want to end up like that loser? Well, do you?".
/r/MensRights17/04/19 12:11 AM
3

What kind of wanker cares? Anyone with a foreskin who has ever wanked.
/r/MensRights17/04/19 12:07 AM
3

The gender reversal makes it sound really awful. That's actually a really good point. Why is "you aren't a natural-born rapist" too pro-male for normal people and counter to the mainstream narrative, but "you aren't a natural-born prostitute" gross enough that even MRAs object. That's not an empathy gap, that's a yawning abyss.
/r/MensRights15/04/19 12:26 AM
1

his subreddit was one of the crusaders in calling out Dr. Bouman The the first post in this thread starts with: "She was used and turned into a poster girl for women in STEM, and her contribution was exalted and importance overstated. That's not HER fault. In fact, she openly tried to ensure this wouldn't happen when her team all pushed their buttons together, so there wouldn't be one person singled out over any other. She's blameless." quoting shitty garbage like LOC "LOC = productivity" is eas…
/r/MensRights14/04/19 11:25 PM
1

Wack That's a bit harsh. They read something on an extremely complex topic and conflated two concepts that are closely related in human beings (sexual reproduction and sexual differentiation) but that likely had different origins. Nothing to be ashamed of.
/r/MensRights14/04/19 06:05 PM
8

the topic here is circumcision ... You keep bringing up genital mutilation, and that is a side topic or something. The topic here is wood-burning stoves, why do you keep talking about fire? Its also gross, absoutely disgusting to see bigotry. LOL. One of us: "I want to control what happens to my dick." You: "BIGOT!!!"
/r/MensRights14/04/19 05:50 PM
6

On the whole normative religious practices do not get challenged. Per Wikipedia's article on strict scrutiny: In one area of law, religious liberty, laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases. However, a discrepancy was found in the type of religious liberty claim, with most claims for exemption from law failing and no allegedly discriminatory laws surviving. So, assuming the courts actually use their traditional interpretation and we make sure the …
/r/MensRights14/04/19 05:45 PM
1

The viral eukaryogenesis (VE) theory .. describes how an organelle may have formed, not sexual differentiation. Even the rather loose argument that this event could have also lead to meiosis would only explain part of the origin of sexual reproduction in the single, new species, but not how or why differing gametes developed (mating types), nor sexual differentiation developed (different sexes). And even if it did, that doesn't match well with the story you gave. VE suggests that three species m…
/r/MensRights09/04/19 03:51 AM
1

The same gene pool can have different morphs but that gene pool can not develop new morphs. OK. Why not? Its very simple logic to get your head around but if you can't you can't. An assertion isn't logic. There is no existing theory in evolution that can describe how an existing gene pool can develop new morphs within normal rules. There isn't? So it can explain speciation and complex lifecycles, but not specialized gametes? Do you have any evidence for this? Yeah the different caste morphs of i…
/r/MensRights09/04/19 02:08 AM
1

In fact all gendered species are actually two species If by 'species' you just mean 'kind' then yes, males and females are different - but so are blonds and redheads. If you mean the scientific classification thing, then no - men and women have have children together, so by definition they're the same species. Fast forward some evolutionary time and these two organisms are sharing dna. Horizontal gene transfer is a thing, but that's probably not how sex evolved. It's much more likely that one, s…
/r/MensRights09/04/19 01:33 AM
1

Soon after the birth of his twin boy and girl, Doobie carefully stripped the boy naked. Then while manipulating his penis in one hand, he reached for the knife with the other. His friend Pow mused "Even though we critizise the current system, I thought we were all on board with the general concept of consent. I mean, at the very least, when someone is physically injured, then..." The rest of his thoughts were drowned out by the screams. Moments later, after wiping the bood from his mouth, Doobie…
/r/MensRights03/04/19 11:23 PM
9

This is a stupid thing to be fighting for. But it clearly upsets you. That doesn't make you weaker or less of a man, but putting so much effort into fighting against yourself is clearly not doing you any favors. There's many many better than this But you're not putting work into them right now, are you? And you're not hassling the gamers or knitting clubs about how they're wasting their time. So ask yourself - why are you here, really? What need were you trying to fulfill?
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:49 AM
7

Your honor, I rest my case. I wish you the best, and hope you manage to resolve your issues in a healthy way.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 04:29 AM
10

It's not a big deal. ... I don't get it. I think it's stupid. "I care so little, that's why I keep posting about it." If you keep at it, eventually you might convince yourself that's it's true. But the rest of us see it, plain as day. I hope you can find a way to make peace with yourself.
/r/MensRights02/03/19 03:39 AM
11

There are reasons to circumcise. In the same sense that there are reasons to cut off people's limbs, yes. A possible cause of your family's problem is premature retraction, and unless you tried the other available treatments I'm not sure how you could know that this was right for you. It's amazing how all of these other countries get by with nearly no medical circumcisions at all, but every time it comes up around Americans at least one person will insist that their surgery was absolutely necess…
/r/MensRights02/03/19 03:32 AM
5

we certainly do not ask their permission to remove infected tonsils What about uninfected tonsils? you can't actually prevent people from performing religious rites in the US Yes, we most certainly can. Otherwise there wouldn't be any polygamists in jail right now. You might want to brush up on strict scrutiny, especially the part about "..laws that burden religious liberty survived strict scrutiny review in nearly 60% of cases.".
/r/MensRights31/01/19 01:37 AM
2

----- Bad analogies I’m making the point that if you argue men should have body autonomy women should too and it is hypocritical to complain about the outcomes of that autonomy in one situation and not the other. The only thing that's being complained about is that one person gets that autonomy and a different person gets the bill. When men who choose to get circumcised want the right to sue old girlfriends for half the cost you might have a point. The ticket is the exact right argument. So the …
/r/MensRights05/01/19 01:49 AM
2

why shouldnt he fund his poor decision? If we aren't going to make her fund her poor decision, and we're in favor of equality, then...
/r/MensRights04/01/19 06:44 AM
2

Aren’t MRA against circumcision for the very same reason? Body autonomy? Nobody is going to be forced to get an abortion. Watch the video again and this time pay attention. Child support exists because the child, who did nothing wrong, deserves to be financially supported by both people who created that child. Are you arguing that mothers who give up their child for adoption should have to pay child support to the orphanage or foster parents (at least until the child gets adopted)? If you ran a …
/r/MensRights04/01/19 06:42 AM
1

That's a lie. Just flat out. You lied... Or don't understand psychology at all. You're the one trying to bring actual psychology in an effort to bring validity to your argument. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this: "In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in o…
/r/MensRights29/05/18 12:51 PM
1

Lack of context means people are just talking in circles. There was enough context for you to start making unequivocal statements about what the intended meaning was, so how much more context could you possibly need? Show me in the DSM where bumbling speech is a disorder. Constant, and intrusive hallucinations is not a disorder in itself. It's a symptom of a larger disorder... None of these have anything to do with what I said. Enjoy your men of straw. Now you're trying to compare poor speech to…
/r/MensRights29/05/18 02:56 AM
1

So because the comic wasn't on the topic you wished to discuss, it's useless? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when you make ludicrous statements like this, it makes it hard. ... The comic is useless because it's a low-effort, karma grab. I asked a question because I couldn't tell what you were getting at, and how on earth does the OP's post being low-effort make the thing he linked to useless? Nearly every mental illness you can name is just an exaggeration of normal person…
/r/MensRights28/05/18 12:10 PM
1

Which is why the comic is pretty much useless, and was used as a low effort karma grab. So because the comic wasn't on the topic you wished to discuss, it's useless? Tourette's, and lack of self regulation are (or part of) mental disabilities/disorders. Being awkward isn't similar. And I disagree. Nearly every mental illness you can name is just an exaggeration of normal personality traits, I don't know why lesser forms of self non-regulation couldn't exist. perception matters ... It just needs …
/r/MensRights28/05/18 02:38 AM
1

My issue isn't with the woman, it would be with HR actually lending credibility to her complaint, and in doing so, validating her experience. Almost exactly the point I'm trying to make - whether he's creepy or not is an opinion, and she's allowed to have hers no matter what (as are both of us), but it's shouldn't be a "call HR" issue. If she reacted socially (ignoring him, asking to be left alone, snarking "Nice vest, Dave.") then the comic would only be about rejection, but she reacted by call…
/r/MensRights28/05/18 01:03 AM
1

The subject is a mediocre low effort comic. It's the idea expressed by a mediocre low effort comic, yes. Trying to take that seriously is moronic. You say in your introductory paragraph to an essay where you focus on individual word choices. There's a literal difference there that you're ignoring. When you start off your sentence with "mmmm" it becomes awkward and creepy. I'm not ignoring it, I'm fine with your choice to interpret if as a suggestive interjection rather than a pause, I'm even fin…
/r/MensRights27/05/18 11:45 AM
2

Oh, I see. We were talking about being punished or fired for (attempts at) flirting. You want to pretend that the subject was merely getting rejected. How adorable.
/r/MensRights26/05/18 02:33 PM
3

That word.
/r/MensRights21/05/18 07:02 AM
5

You clearly didn't read the article, you aren't even addressing the same subject. P.S. The phrase "social monogamy" already means something, isn't used the way you're using it, and relates to actual monogamy in much the same way "social justice" relates to justice.
/r/MensRights20/05/18 01:28 PM
3

World to end tomorrow: Women and minorities hardest hit. That's actually a fairly old joke, some version of it probably dates back to at least the 80s. This isn't. Well, unless you count the fact that The Guardian is a joke...
/r/MensRights17/05/18 11:48 PM
6

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good I agree, but you also shouldn't let the damaging symbolic gesture replace the good. Once you have a law like that it's becomes even harder to pass a full ban, because it would then be explicitly targeting religious practices, and it sets a precedent for laws that only apply to specific religions. In the US I might be able to see this as having positive effects, but in Iceland it would just be banning something that no-one is doing anyway. So all it …
/r/MensRights14/05/18 12:22 AM
6

I'd hazard a guess that they're these, since (as far as I can remember) they're the exact same three poorly done and over-hyped studies that every pro-cric group cites: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231970?dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321310?dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321311?dopt=Abstract
/r/MensRights26/04/18 05:30 AM
1

How do I get it through to you that your thinking is incorrect and needs to be adjusted? Short version - learn how to argue. Long version (just the really obvious improvements you could make): Pick a single proposition ("religion allows me to commit violence", or "this is a bad strategy", not both) Understand the difference between stating your position and making an argument Clearly spell out how you get from commonly accepted propositions to your conclusion Accept that hypotheticals are part o…
/r/MensRights24/04/18 05:28 AM
1

Anyways, calling someone elses beliefs irrational is not polite, and a terrible way of building support. Then why do you come here and do that?
/r/MensRights24/04/18 05:08 AM
4

The contrapositive is true. Because it is religious, it is not abusive. That's not the contrapositive. Also, saying the contrapositive of a statement is true is logically equivalent to saying the original statement is true, which means that you're agreeing with the original post. Because it is religious, it is not abusive. Some people believe that a deity commands something, and that makes other, unrelated adjectives inapplicable? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
/r/MensRights24/04/18 04:41 AM
8

You do care about it. I care about the abuse. I don't care at all if you (or other people) think God said to do it. You're trying to impose on me. That will not be allowed to happen. I'm "imposing" by advocating for a punishment for sticking a knife into another person's body - and there's not a single culture in recorded history where that hasn't been prohibited in most cases. The only thing we're arguing over is whether or not there's a religious exemption to that rule for certain kinds of act…
/r/MensRights23/04/18 07:56 AM
8

Nothing's funnier than a troll trying to save face after an ass-whupping.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 07:40 AM
8

You do not want to prevent child abuse, you want to prevent the exercise of a religious ritual No, we want to prevent child abuse. You're the one who labels a very targeted subset of child abuse as "a religious ritual", which none of us care about. That doesn't stop if from being abuse.
/r/MensRights23/04/18 07:36 AM
2

To my knowledge, circumcision has not changed at all since Abraham. ... We had on-again off-again wars against the Greeks So you know enough history to understand how more advanced cultures react when they meet yours, but you don't know what your culture did in response to the exact example you gave? Unbelievable. It shouldn't have to come to that again. It won't. As has happened since the Enlightenment, ethical people will recognize something as harmful to others and ban it, your culture will b…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 12:17 AM
9

it is completely unacceptable for you to impose your secularism onto me Did you make that same argument when we told Muslims to stop cutting their girls? What about when we told them that they couldn't kill apostates? we are commanded to perform a specific act at a specific time Except that you've already changed "the act" to removed the whole foreskin, doing it at 18 won't kill you. You will conform. Exactly, you don't believe in freedom of religion, only the freedom to impose it. And you have …
/r/MensRights18/04/18 02:04 PM
12

Circumcision is like vaccination or removing a cleft palate in that you are helping your child It is not helping your child in any way. Yes, my religion requires I circumcision my sons. It also allows you to own slaves. Guess what else I'm going to try to prevent you from doing? You are projecting your issue with your parents onto religious people who do not even know you have a problem. So if I was a freed slave, I can only bring it up with my ex-owners? If I bring up my objections to other peo…
/r/MensRights18/04/18 05:47 AM
10

If anything, circumcision is like vaccination, or removing a cleft palate You have a serious disagreement with nearly every medical group on Earth. Please see to resolving that before repeating medical advice from the internet and outdated American snake-oil. Also, your second paragraph is difficult to decipher. OK, look at this statement you made: Attacking people who never harmed you makes you a jerk. None of these people did anything to you. When the topic is "parents cutting boys based on th…
/r/MensRights18/04/18 04:26 AM
11

Using demographic weight to drive religious practices underground makes you an asshole. Attacking harmful religious practices is a moral duty. Being an asshole to people who have not bothered you and have no intention of bothering you is not a good thing. You might as well say the same thing about other kinds of child molesters, or animal abusers, or people who only rape people who aren't your sex, or people who accost races other than yours, or killers in other countries, or people who only ste…
/r/MensRights18/04/18 03:50 AM
1

I am am more upset that people give a shit about circumcision than I care one way or the other. One of the sad parts about working to support human rights is that you have to constantly bring it up, to keep pushing people to face an awful truth that they'd rather ignore. Starvation, murder, mutilation - it all sucks, but you have to talk about it or it will never improve. I do feel bad for you, trying to avoid that conflict, but fighting that battle to its inevitable conclusion the only way to m…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 09:23 AM
2

The benefits outweigh the risk. Nearly every medical group in the world disagrees with that statement. This is just an out right lie. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)... Nearly - as in there are a few exceptions. And how could I have guessed that you'd run to the out of date, heavily criticized policy statement by eight people, at least one of whom openly admits is not based on medical grounds. Ignorance really is bliss for you, but giving that up is part of becoming an adult.
/r/MensRights16/04/18 08:15 AM
2

What are the benefits to not being circumsized? Sexual pleasure, appearance, normal human anatomy, self-determination. I went into graphic personal detail in another reply under this post, have a look. The benefits outweigh the risk. Nearly every medical group in the world disagrees with that statement. I'm sorry you feel less whole and victimized because your parents made a decision to remove a pointless flap of skin that only causes inconvenience and potential complication. I would be happy th…
/r/MensRights16/04/18 01:44 AM
2

I'm glad I got the sweet benefits Keep telling yourself that. Sure, the supposed benefits change every generation or so, and the vast majority of medical groups treat them as nonexistent or too small to be worth even thinking about, but hang on to the dream that there must be something good about it. How many countries can you name that have circumcision <1% and don't have ten times the amount or cases of complications due to it? Japan, several Scandinavian countries. More to the point, can you …
/r/MensRights16/04/18 12:01 AM
1

all of the health risks and overall inconvenience and complications ... 1% of all uncircumcised men will experience phimosis ... You will probably spend a total of two days worth of time in your life effectively washing your foreskin Getting medical advice from the internet is a bit risky - this info is about as reliable as the stuff you see about healing crystals and magnetic bracelets. There are plenty of advanced nations that have circumcision rates <1%, and they get along just fine and don't…
/r/MensRights15/04/18 05:35 PM
3

Why can't you feel pleasure on the right side? The short version is I have more mucosal tissue (inner foreskin), including part of the frenulum on the left. The long version: My circumcision scar comes to a point on the underside. Following it to the right it's almost straight around my penis, gradually getting closer to my body, while on the left it goes straight toward my body for almost an inch before curving to go around. This gives me essentially twice the area of sensitive tissue on the le…
/r/MensRights13/04/18 01:38 PM
27

Circumcision. If it weren't for that I probably would at least have sympathies with the movement, but it would probably be along the lines of other things that don't directly affect me (gay marriage, gun rights) or are somewhat ignore-able (demonetization of male sexuality, twitter campaigns). But every time I see my dick I'm reminded that "equality" and "my body, my choice" don't apply to me. And every time I enjoy sex I can't ignore the fact that I'm not really feeling any pleasure on the righ…
/r/MensRights13/04/18 07:30 AM
1

I don't hate my parents, I just don't trust them. As for doctors, I both dislike and distrust them. I still believe that you're letting your (well-justified) feelings cloud your judgement. Again, I hope things work out for you.
/r/MensRights11/04/18 04:37 AM
1

Literally just doing what you're told to do is the definition of blind obedience. But you're not "just doing what you"re told" if you're also doing other things - like asking questions and get other opinions. That's actually the opposite of just doing what you're told. There's no excuse good enough. ... Doctors wrongfully removed part of my body then, so I won't let them remove part of my body now. ... I can still have a good life even without trusting doctors or my parents. And now you're allow…
/r/MensRights10/04/18 12:07 PM
1

Blindly listening to a doctor who tells you to chop up your son's penis isn't exactly brainwashing, but it is blind obedience to authority. Unless they literally just did what they were told to do, with no questions or the general medical "knowledge" laypeople had the time, then it's by definition not blind obedience. You seem to be equivocating between "came to the wrong conclusion" and every possible way to insult their decision-making ability. Me not removing my wisdom teeth? It's not paranoi…
/r/MensRights10/04/18 03:34 AM
1

So then it's different for you. ... Yours have an excuse, mine don't. OK. Believing that genital mutilation is "proper, modern, medical care" is a sign of being completely brainwashed by the establishment, and not really questioning authorities. "Proper, modern" doctors told me to get my wisdom teeth out last year and I showed them the door. Being willing to accept medical advice from a medical professional isn't a sign of brainwashing, it's a sign that you understand what their field of experti…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 09:41 AM
2

And no, there were ample opportunities for them to know. I was born in the late 1990s, and both of my parents are well-educated people. 20% of babies born in my region in my year were left intact I was born in the Midwestern US several decades earlier, in an area where the rate was at least 90%. Again, the only people my parents even heard of who didn't cut their boys were ones that simply couldn't afford "proper, modern medical care". Because blindly following authorities (in this case, doctors…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 07:28 AM
2

If I do something bad, even if I didn't realize it was bad, I would fully expect to be blamed for it I guess I'm willing to agree to disagree, but that still seems reflexively legalistic. It's not just that they didn't know, it's that they couldn't have realistically known. In that situation they would have had essentially the same justification for not vaccinating as they would have had for not circumcising. "Having bad judgement" is even stranger - good judgement is specifically making the bes…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 03:58 AM
7

They still signed off on it. You can and should blame and distrust them, since they signed off on it and had bad judgement Can you really distrust someone over something they they couldn't have reasonably known about, or even say that they had bad judgement when they didn't even know that there was something to be judged? What are we going to be blaming you for in a few decades based on information that you simply don't have right now? The only people my parents had even heard of who didn't circ…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 03:21 AM
1

I’m adorable that I’m misquoted? I copy-and-pasted exact quotes from your last three comments in this thread, in their original order. So this is either very bad trolling (which amuses me) or a sign that you need a medical evaluation.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 09:44 PM
0

Reproduction is only a requirement for an individual if ... ... individual reproduction is necessary Reproduction itself isn’t required, man you are dense You're adorable.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 08:29 PM
1

If a species has a high mortality rate individual reproduction is necessary That's not always true - if the high mortality is caused by starvation, reproduction may be undesirable full stop. Where do you think you pointed this out before? What does that have to do with humans needing embryos to reproduce or embryos being parasites?
/r/MensRights08/04/18 04:21 PM
1

Yes, that could have been better written. Cool. Thanks for being classy about it.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 07:04 AM
2

He points out it's illegal, and inherently an unethical act. Which would be fine on its own, but in response to someone saying "it's illegal, but not immoral", it sounds like they missed the point. And the original sentence was even more difficult to interpret than your translation - they literally went "ethical ... legal ... ethical" in the same sentence.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 07:00 AM
1

Reproduction is only a requirement for an individual Well, I never said that reproduction was a requirement at all, I said pregnancy is a requirement for human reproduction. Reproduction is only a requirement for an individual if the species is limited by other factors That doesn't seem coherent. I'll rewrite that sentence at carefully as I can: Only if the species is limited by other factors is reproduction a requirement for an individual. Nope, still not making sense. Could you give an example…
/r/MensRights08/04/18 04:58 AM
1

I pointed out how I meant reproduction of the species because of how overpopulated we are in the first place making singular reproduction semi unnecessary As far as I can tell, this is what you're referring to: “It’s required for reproduction” not really, it’s necessary for that particular humans reproduction but that’s not even necessary overall I have no idea how I was supposed to get "not every individual needs to reproduce", or anything at all about overpopulation, or what that would have to…
/r/MensRights08/04/18 03:28 AM
5

moral and ethical bounds, It's illegal, murder is inherently an unethical act Maybe you're aware of the distinction, but you can't switch topics repeatedly in the middle of a sentence and then blame other people for not understanding what you meant to write. You might start with using periods to end sentences and commas to separate phrases rather than the other way around.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 03:07 AM
1

So ignoring half the things I said to make your dumbass point Yes, I ignored so much while responding to nearly every sentence you've posted, and those things were so important that you didn't bother bringing them up again. You wound me, sir. How could I have done such a thing? nice You have no idea. :)
/r/MensRights08/04/18 01:49 AM
0

“It’s required for reproduction” not really Can you give me an example of human reproduction without a pregnancy? And it is a parasitic infection, no one refers to parasites like that but whatever Sure. I also never said it was an illness Exactly. You want to equivocate between "fetus" and "parasite", but balk when I do the same thing with "pregnancy" and "infection" - even though those are both roughly equivalent analogies. I'm hoping that will help you see why people think both of those don't …
/r/MensRights08/04/18 12:37 AM
1

A symbiotic relationship requires the parasite to give back You can't reproduce without them, which makes it sound like they're quite beneficial. If men couldn't have children without a tapeworm in their intestine (e.g. to produce some hormone) I'd say that the worm was "giving back". no, an infection implies bacteria I can't imagine that you haven't at least heard the term "viral infection" or "fungal infection", and you can also get a "protozoan infection". While many people might phrase it as…
/r/MensRights07/04/18 04:47 AM
1

Parasite - Noun Yes, your Google search or grade-school dictionary doesn't clearly delineate the difference between parasitism and other forms of symbiosis. My bad for assuming that "mutualistic symbionts" would clue you in. So to restate the questions I asked before, do you think that pregnant people have an infection? Or to play your definition game - since creating and sustaining one very particular kind of parasite is part of the normal life-cycle of human beings, does it make sense to treat…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:23 PM
-1

finger nails aren’t limbs you dipshit Yes, that would be the point that went over your head. it is by definition the same thing Embryos and tapeworms both survive off of a host, so they're "by definition the same thing". Fingernails and limbs are both body parts, so they're "by definition the same thing". To I need to type slower? You’re really dense aren’t you Sure, but I can tell the difference between things your body deliberately grows and sustains for the benefit of its genes and something …
/r/MensRights06/04/18 01:46 PM
1

But it is the same as removing a parasitic organism I'm solidly pro-choice, but this is absurd. If you can't tell the difference between a pregnancy and a tapeworm infestation, you've lost the plot completely. Being pregnant, like being asleep, simply isn't a disease no matter how unwanted it is - it's a normal, natural, healthy biological state. And just like I shouldn't have to pay for your stay-awake pills (excepting narcolepsy) I shouldn't have to pay for your birth control or abortions (exc…
/r/MensRights06/04/18 08:06 AM
2

If FGM was practiced by Jews and Americans and MGM was practiced by Africans and Muslims, FGM would be legal and MGM would be banned. But that's not the real situation - FGM may be practiced almost exclusively by Africans and Muslims, but MGM is practiced by Jews and Americans and by Africans and Muslims. As far as I know every single society has either mutilated or not mutilated the genitals of both sexes, or mutilated only males - exactly the same way that laws against homosexuality and the dr…
/r/MensRights03/04/18 03:47 AM
2

You're partly right, the FBI did change their definition. It now does include things like same-sex rapes in prison and statutory rape, but the perpetrator still has to be doing the penetrating. More importantly, other jurisdictions have their own definitions (in the UK rape is still only penetration with a penis, different US states have different cutoffs for statutory rape), so scientific papers and government reports have to have their own, more precise definitions.
/r/MensRights31/03/18 04:23 PM
2

What you're trying to do is suggest... Cathy Newman - it didn't work last time, and it won't work this time, either.
/r/MensRights30/03/18 07:13 PM
4

I'm pretty sure that if you swapped foreskin for a non-sexual body part you'd have a YA Si-Fi novel.
/r/MensRights26/03/18 03:51 AM
2

I didn't expect this from you. WTF Korea? South Korea inherited most of its modern medical practices from the 50s-70s American military. North Korea is still too backward for even 19th century 'medicine'.
/r/MensRights26/03/18 03:39 AM
1

This is too much fun, so I'll repeat my thesis: "They're missing a sarcasm indicator, and you're missing the context". Your first link is about MEN killing WOMEN for saying no. As is the third link. They all were, that's the context you missed. When a small minority of men hurt women it is taken by some people as proof that it's dangerous for women to reject men. The OP story was about a woman harming a man because she was rejected. Yes. So for people who think the sexes should be treated equall…
/r/MensRights21/03/18 11:19 AM
5

You lack critical thinking skills if you think this as a broad rule. They're missing a sarcasm indicator, and you're missing the context: MEN ARE KILLING THOUSANDS OF WOMEN A YEAR FOR SAYING NO Rejecting men has deadly consequences, so it’s really no wonder we’re terrified of them Boys aren’t learning how to handle rejection, with dangerous consequences
/r/MensRights20/03/18 12:18 PM
2

Exactly. When your cause is in the minority and struggling to make its case, free speech is the foundation of Western civilization and only those who have no argument would take the cowardly route and try to censor it. When your cause becomes the status quo, hate speech is an immoral attack on everything that is good in the world and keeping those ideas away from impressionable people is a moral duty.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 01:56 PM
10

I am circumcised and glad to be so. I am circumcised and absolutely hate it. Just looking to understand the anti-circumcision idea here, can someone lay it on me like I’m 5? I think all human beings should, as a general rule, have the ability to chose what happens to their own bodies. If you need more detail, just ask. Sort of seems like trying to force a movement. If the right of men to control what happens to their own penis doesn't count as "men's rights", what does? What's the point of fight…
/r/MensRights19/03/18 12:32 AM
3

Going into a fight where the outcome is uncertain is just not smart. The result of that kind of thinking is mindless status quo. The only reason the U.S. Constitution even exists is because some people were willing to fight battles that they weren't certain to win, but they knew still needed to be attempted for the betterment of mankind. An attainable goal that has precedent exists. ... Yes. In most of the world we didn't even have to fight for that, and we've already won that battle in England,…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 09:38 AM
4

You can convince just a few doctors on a few boards that its unnecessary surgery and get 80% of what you want in a year. We've already done that almost everywhere outside of the US and South Korea. So what's next? And you're not trying to protect anyone. Don't lie to me, it doesn't work. What you are doing is trying to antagonize the religious when they have done nothing to you. Whoever convinced you to frame this issue this way did a major disservice to you. They programmed you think incorrectl…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:35 AM
2

its not a bright idea to throw yourself into an intractable unwinnable fight This is men's rights - everything we advocate for is described as "unwinnable" by outsiders. So get in line with the rest of the feminists - I think it's "quit whining about not being able to see your kids" day tomorrow, but I think we can make time for your trolling if you ask nicely. The Art of War I only don't remember if the chapter on terrain explicitly calls out "home turf", but you seem to be saying that this bat…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 08:15 AM
5

men are human beings, too. See everyone, see what I mean? Look at the above comment, that is exactly the kind of comment I want you to recognize as stupidly antagonistic and unhelpful. The rest of you gotta chime in when someone does this and tell him that he is being unnecessarily divisive on a fringe issue. Found the feminist!
/r/MensRights16/03/18 06:25 AM
9

So you went to a subreddit where advocates of human rights congregate, and start calling them 'retarded' for advocating for human rights. Then you're upset and confused about how they're not on board with that. If I agree with 99% of what you say, but 1% is an attack on my religion, I have an obligation to fight you with every fiber of my being for the rest of my life. OK, your religion is more important to you than human rights. Sucks to be you, because you have to live with the civilized peopl…
/r/MensRights16/03/18 06:21 AM
0

If you have no proof that ... There is proof, however ... You made the original assertion, then claimed to have evidence, but still haven't provided it. So why should I feel compelled to support an offhand example that wasn't directly related to my main point - which was "risks factors aren't that simple"? Even if I'm mis-remembering about scarring in particular, "it definitely increases your risk for cancer" is still something that assumes facts you haven't backed up, both about how the number …
/r/MensRights09/03/18 05:05 AM
0

a larger whale will be at a higher risk for cancer than a smaller whale as will a larger rat vs a smaller rat Do you have evidence for that? Can you demonstrate that rats made smaller by cutting have a lower rate?
/r/MensRights09/03/18 04:14 AM
1

having more cells dividing means having more chances for one to become cancerous To an extent, yes, but risks factors aren't that simple. Whales can weigh a million times as much as a mouse and live thirty times as long, but aren't at that much greater risk of cancer. More to the point, scar tissue increases ones risk of cancer, and I have no idea how mucosal skin reacts to being dry all the time, so I wouldn't be willing to bet either way.
/r/MensRights09/03/18 03:25 AM
3

What's your superpower? I've earned more respect than you were given.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 09:44 AM
2

You're gonna have to get to the base, root. Except you're not trying to "get to the root" (i.e. the basic moral principles I'm working with), you're demanding that I ignore some of those principles because you disagree with them. And to make it even more absurd, your method of dealing with them is to pretend that they don't exist. Why is it wrong to film an atrocity if the only other practical option open to you is to ignore it? Especially if there's a chance that filming it could prevent future…
/r/MensRights06/03/18 03:50 AM
1

You can document proper anatomy, and show damage that presents itself in adults. Which is a good place to start, but may not be as persuasive as showing a child in pain. Yes, his rights were sacrificed for the recording. His rights were going to be 'sacrificed' regardless of what the film crew did. So no. You DON'T INTENTIONALLY COLLABORATE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS. Oh, so if they had secretly recorded it, then it would be OK? The act of asking permission is what they did wrong? If you suppor…
/r/MensRights06/03/18 01:40 AM
1

Best system currently in existence. Yep - in many other times we could both be killed just for having a discussion like this. Doesn't mean there isn't a lot of room for improvement. More importantly for this discussion, how do we improve it if we can't document and expose the bad things that are done privately? And people still sacrifice children for films like this. No, he wasn't. The child was already going to be 'sacrificed' (well, partially). Filming didn't create that situation. Get it yet?…
/r/MensRights05/03/18 07:54 AM
1

You can't cut a clit, you can't cut a dick. I agree that the current situation is absurd, but it is the current situation. If it wasn't we wouldn't need an intactivist movement, right? GTFO circuntfetishist apologist. Yep, Western legal systems are a bit messed up. Still the best system currently in existence, though. One of the best things about it is that we can discuss things openly, and have a clear path to change things.
/r/MensRights05/03/18 07:12 AM
1

Stabbing you in the face with a pencil isn't illegal either, there's not a law that says I can't stab someone in the face with a pencil, please locate. If you find it necessary, give me a jurisdiction and I'll look up the relevant law for you. No, it won't use the word 'pencil', but it doesn't have to, and I think you knew that. Regardless of imaginary bodies actually applying laws correctly Exactly. You want to pretend that standard assault/battery statutes apply to circumcision, despite the we…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 08:48 PM
1

Journalism is different than producing torture porn. Like I said, if you support this, you support the production, editing, and pimping of child porn. That's a logically flawless fact. Again, one is already illegal, the other isn't. "Flawless" - LOL. Rape and mutilation (circumcision) is not legal. Great! I'm sure you can tell me which countries, and point me toward news articles about people who have been convicted (or at least the statutes in question and why nobody has been convicted). 2/10 f…
/r/MensRights04/03/18 01:46 AM
1

I never stated that one couldn't describe it. How do you think journalism worked back then? And part of your critique is that they "set up an appointment" and "pimp an activist movement for money, and keep bilking" - if they only did those things and wrote about it would you be OK with that? "record with a high definition camera" - so you wanted them to use their phone? For a documentary? This is unhinged nonsense based purely on personal disgust. Like I said, logically, if you support exploitin…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 10:22 PM
2

I love playing with trolls! :) Then you, logically, support slavery where it's legal, child brides where it's legal So if someone witnessed a slave getting beaten (when that was legal), and they wrote an article describing the cruelty and evil being put on display, they're actually supporting slavery? I don't think you know what 'logically' means. eating dogs where it's legal If you already eat pork, and use humane methods, what's wrong with that? Raping and mutilating (circumcising) a child onl…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 07:54 PM
3

By that logic, it's okay to set up an appointment with someone who regularly fucks a child The comparison doesn't work because one is legal and the other isn't, so there are proper ways to prevent one and not the other. You can call the cops on a child rapist, but not a child circumciser. A better analogy would be the situation journalists were in when slavery was still legal. If someone made a living reporting on the conditions of slaves in the American south, with the intent of help sway peopl…
/r/MensRights03/03/18 09:05 AM
1

The next phase is probably going to require sub-communities in those groups reforming their religions from within. Or criminalizing it That would be the end goal, yes, but that will be much easier if there are mainstream alternatives for the religious practitioners. For example, if 20% of Jews didn't circumcise, and were still treated as equals in their own community, a ban would feel less like an attack on their community and it would be harder to paint intactivists as anti-Semites.
/r/MensRights01/03/18 01:03 AM
3

It won't get lower. About 3% of the Australian population is Muslim or Jewish. It won't get lower just because doctors are being honest and ethical, no. The next phase is probably going to require sub-communities in those groups reforming their religions from within.
/r/MensRights28/02/18 01:02 PM
1

It's almost like doctors can change the medical system on their own This isn't being driven by doctors. So the significant decline in rates in many countries over the past few decades has nothing to do with doctors no longer recommending neonatal circumcision or recommending against it? Or did you mean something else?
/r/MensRights28/02/18 07:07 AM
13

Doctors in a number of countries have rejected circumcision for quite some time. It's had no effect. Except for all of those English-speaking countries where it used to be a common medical practice and now it isn't. It's almost like doctors can change the medical system on their own, but updating legal rights and religious/cultural practices will require outside help. Circumcision will remain legal forever. Just like slavery, beating your children, stoning homosexuals... Better strategy: registe…
/r/MensRights27/02/18 02:01 PM
5

Excellent parody of the kind feminist who wants 'muh kwaltee', but whenever a problem occurs thinks women are too dumb to tie their own shoes and thus can't be responsible for anything. P.S. You forgot the '/s'.
/r/MensRights27/02/18 04:43 AM
11

"Female Male Supremacists" I loved Dave Chappelle's "Black White Supremacist" skit, so... Wait, this isn't The Onion?
/r/MensRights26/02/18 08:25 AM
6

When women have children they usually preform fewer hours of paid work than they did before. Men do the reverse. So...
/r/MensRights23/02/18 07:23 AM
5

Naturally they'll counter with "Sure that's what they mean on the surface but really there's a lot more associated with mra" while not noticing that there tends to be a lot more associated with feminism as well. Exactly. If you go that direction they have to either admit that there's a difference between denotation and connotation (undermining their own argument), or start talking about the issues rather than the language that you happen to be using to discuss those issues. Either way you've dod…
/r/MensRights22/02/18 03:09 PM
8

what's different between the USA and Canada, Europe, and, well, pretty much every other part of the world where school shooting are rare. Well, there are quite a few cultural differences between American and European culture, I'd start there. But you can't be suggesting that at a ~1:4 gun/citizen ratio (as with Canada, Australia, France, etc) there aren't any school shootings, but at 1:1 (like the US) there are suddenly a lot. That would be silly.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 08:19 AM
13

I oppose anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic prohibition on religious practices. We've already banned FGM, slavery, and forced conversion. Are you going to gripe about those bans? Freedom (of religion, sexuality, or anything else) allows you to believe whatever you want and do what you want with other consenting adults. The moment you want to so something sexual with a child, amputate their body parts, or in this case do both at the same time, we have a moral duty to stop you.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 12:04 AM
2

I do not know much about opera, but i am pretty certain it does not contain very much on stage sex. Yes, but the climax of the story is a man killing a woman. Thus: A recent performance of Bizet’s Carmen in Florence replaced the death of the female lead with her murder of a jealous man, reversing the traditional ending. The reworking of the plot was intended to stage a “current Bizet”, which had a message of ‘anti-femicide’, the opera company said. The death of both of them was foreshadowed, so …
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:22 PM
2

Since I rarely get to practice my French: Elodie Jeauneau - Good evening @carolinedehass, I don't have access to the whole article, could you tell me what study or research you relied on when you said "We know one man in two or three is an aggressor"? Thank you in advance. Caroline De Haas - Hello Elodie, I told the journalist from Lobs, by phone: "1 woman in 2 is a victim. I don't know how many men are aggressors. 1 in 2, 1 in 3. In any case, a lot".
/r/MensRights17/02/18 06:09 AM
29

I don't think that anyone believes that feminists are the only obstacle to men's rights. They're just the only ones that oppose men's rights because they're men's rights.
/r/MensRights13/02/18 02:12 AM
1

Well you seemed to be saying that people generally don't hold simultaneously conflicting views That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm responding to these statements from above: But in no way should you be able to force me to carry a pregnancy to term if you want the baby and I don't. Nobody is asking for this. I'm thinking every Pro-Life advocate is asking this, right? And I'm saying that 'nobody is asking for this' probably meant 'nobody advocating for legal paternal surrender is asking for thi…
/r/MensRights13/02/18 01:41 AM
1

nor are there many "pro-FGC anti-MGC" There's plenty of anti-FGC and pro-MGC people, though. Right, that's why I said that some people want "only women to have [a choice]". As with the other two issues, I don't think there are many people who will advocate for LPS who don't also advocate for something similar for women. Like a female-only draft, it just wouldn't jive with people's intuitions. In other words, only logically people are averse to holding simultaneously incompatible views. I'm not s…
/r/MensRights12/02/18 02:46 PM
2

I think that they meant that "almost nobody advocates for men having a choice and advocates against women having one". Sort of like gays and circumcision - there are some that want men and women to have a choice, others that want neither to, and some that want only women to have one. There simply aren't a significant number of "pro-gay-men anti-lesbians", nor are there many "pro-FGC anti-MGC" people. It seems to be psychologically impossible for normal people to hold views like that.
/r/MensRights12/02/18 04:09 AM
6

There's a huge difference between circumcision and removing the clit, people Um ... one's legal and the other isn't? You're used to one and shocked by the other? One hurts people you want to protect and the other hurts people you want to be tough?
/r/MensRights10/02/18 03:53 AM
1

The purpose so far has been to voice my opinion. I'm not trying to convince others to think like me, just using the forum for its intended purpose. Well the 'intended purpose' of a forum is to interact, and you're trying to just broadcast. If you want to spout things off into a void and never get feedback there are diaries and blogs. I could continue to 'defend' myself, but I'm beginning to see you're going to keep trying to push me into a corner, and this is quickly becoming more and more fruit…
/r/MensRights08/02/18 03:40 AM
1

I never claimed to make an argument, in fact I outright stated I wouldn't be making one because I don't see the purpose. So what was your purpose? I can't even come away from this saying "I disagree, but respect your opinion" because you can't be bothered to even clarify what your opinion is. I haven't insulted anyone either. You've stated that being a 'grid girl' is 'sex work'. You've stated that 'sex work' can't be 'honest work'. Your statement that there are some people who just can't be conv…
/r/MensRights08/02/18 01:45 AM
3

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the kind of person who equates sex work with honest work can't be the kind of person I can convince sex work isn't honest work. You haven't even pretended to have an argument, you've only insulted some people who just lost their jobs and whined about how other people "don't understand you", so ...
/r/MensRights07/02/18 01:51 PM
11

But as a Jew I am 100% against banning Judaism and Islam. Banning circumcision wouldn't ban either religion - just a single, demonstrably harmful practice. You can believe anything you like, discuss it, teach it, and do whatever you like with other consenting adults, but you just can't stick knives into people who can't give consent based soley on your faith. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all managed so survive bans on slavery just fine, I don't know why this would be any different.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:19 AM
24

What's the name for that fallacy again? It seems to be a relative of the 'fallacy of relative privation'. I call it "The Wife Beater Gambit": "There are men out there who murder their wives, why are you all up in my face over a few slaps and an occasional black eye? Next you'll tell me that my kid's broken ribs are your business, too!"
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:07 AM
3

The first people to say life has value? Holy s***, you actually believe that. The anti Semites want to force Jews to live the way they want them too. All I want is for you to live non-violently and allow other people (including your children) to have freedom of religion. That includes the freedom not to have other people's religious symbols carved into them. I am on board with all other aspects of the men's rights movement, but the platform of anti circumcision is one I will be never agree with.…
/r/MensRights02/02/18 04:36 AM
2

As a Jew, it is 100% anti-Semitic In exactly the same way that gay marriage is anti-Christian. The fact that there are more actual anti-Semites than anti-Christians doesn't make the logic any less stupid. The Greeks did it, the Romans, many different countries during the dark ages, Russia, Poland...etc... Yes. For thousand of years, every time the chosen people come into contact with a more advanced society there's exactly one aspect of their culture that makes everyone else go "WTF dude!". For …
/r/MensRights02/02/18 03:48 AM
8

/u/ee4m gives a source. This ought to be fun: there are 8000 hospital submissions of botched, home fgm's every year "In 18 cases, the FGM was undertaken in the UK" So according to your own source, there were 18 known cases of FGM that were discovered in the UK during a year-long period, and presumably not all required hospitalization. But where did you get the 8000 number? "there were 8,660 total attendances" -> "Total Attendances refers to all attendances in the reporting period where FGM was i…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 12:59 PM
1

I certainly have a more optimistic view of women than /u/TurboSledge, but it is interesting that your examples for women who risked death consists of: A randomly chosen teacher who died in an accident An architect who's only known quality is that she was a woman (and didn't die from it) A pilot who never did anything first, unless you add 'with a vagina' to it Which one of these people would you have even heard of if they weren't women? Who was the second man to fly solo across the Atlantic?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 11:31 AM
10

Watch, listen and learn men. ... All the feminist crap they spout is just a shit-test to see if you are a real man. Mostly on board. Ditch the soy-milk and get down the gym. Take charge. ... Why do I have to do what they want me to do?
/r/MensRights23/01/18 02:22 PM
1

Colonial capitalism is based on free market capitalism. From your perspective. From a libertarian perspective, 'colonial capitalism' is just another form of socialism. Through the magic of language, something that you agree on becomes something you disagree about, and the government gets away scot-free. Apparently that's all it takes to get you to spend 100% of your time fighting the 'wrong kind' of anti-colonialist, and 0% of your time fighting the empire. You're the vegan throwing rocks at the…
/r/MensRights23/01/18 02:11 PM
1

What would happen if the subsidies were taken away and the government didn't build social housing? That would primarily depend on what the government does with the existing housing, but I'm not willing to make an intuitive guess and state that X would be the final result for sure. under colonial capitalism the British built houses. British claimed property rights, and created the artifical shortage and high prices probably started renting the land they stole back to the people ... damage from Wo…
/r/MensRights23/01/18 01:14 PM
1

Well, I was reading articles a few years ago about the plight of the working poor in Singapore, 60% not being paid enough to make ends meet and needing housing supplements from the government. Now articles are saying 90% of the housing is social housing. 60% get housing subsidies, and 4/5ths is owned by the government - that's not the same as 60% need them or else they'd be on the street, so when you say: In singapore, if the government didnt provide subsidized housing, 60% wouldn't have a roof …
/r/MensRights23/01/18 12:14 PM
1

When wages aren't covering living expenses for 60% of the population due to wealth redistribution upwards, the government has to do something to avoid the system collapsing and or a rebellion. That did not happen in Singapore - you are lying. Since the 1980s we have been redistributing wealth upwards and there is pressure to cut social spending. Are you sure it was the 80s? Because just a bit ago...
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:40 AM
1

In singapore, if the government didnt provide subsidized housing, 60% woildn't have a house. That is false - period. You are lying. I never said anything about putting down guns That's the problem - you want to use violence against people you hate. That's why you think the person asking everyone to holster their weapons so we can talk things out is actually on the other side - those peacemongers are standing between you and your chance at vengeance.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:12 AM
1

What part of that do I need to explain further?
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:43 AM
2

...Why not? They're by far the most common abortion procedure. Because you don't need to go to an abortion clinic to get one? Your rurality assumption...also doesn't really hold up, to be honest. The county that has abortion providers is Teton County, which is on the other side of the state from Cheyenne, Wyoming's most populous city; the nearest abortion provider is actually an hour away in Fort Collins, CO. That actually reinforces my point - I would expect that there are lots of things that y…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 06:35 AM
1

Sexual organs tend to be the organs used to procreate. Beards are definitely sexualized. Right - they're sexualized, so they're not sex organs. Just as in reverse, there's no need to sexualize the penis, it's already sexual.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:18 AM
3

However, there still aren't any abortion clinics in 96% of Wyoming counties. 96% of the state's population lives in these counties. I don't think that's actually as bad as they want to make it sound. There are 23 counties in Wyoming, so there's one county that has a clinic/some clinics. There are only 585,501 people in the state, so if we assume that every woman in the state gets an elective surgical abortion in her lifetime (we don't count prescriptions or emergency ones), and they all take pla…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:07 AM
1

Other animals don't have permanently enlarged breasts, they shrink or grow as necessary. In humans, the enlarged breasts are a secondary sexual organ. Wouldn't that also apply to chest and facial hair, Adam's apples, etc?
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:49 AM
1

When wages aren't covering living expenses for 60% of the population due to wealth redistribution upwards, the government has to do something to avoid the system collapsing and or a rebellion. Neither of those things happened in Singapore. In this case you are lying, twice in the same sentence. Both movements stopped popular mens movements to overthrow their capitalist masters. Again, you're just making things up. They don't want... All in your head. Feminism uses men and white women, redirectin…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 01:21 AM
6

Yeah, I'm not sure why they went with that when there are so many things wrong with that estimate. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Not every vaccine prevents infection with an 100% success rate. Sure, but even according to the study they're citing "circumcision would reduce the lifetime risk of HIV diagnosis for all males by 15.7%". That's not “herd immunity”, or anything like that - and that's after choosing every statistic and making every assumption in favor of whatever makes the connect…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 08:19 PM
5

Sounds like 'Cell Block Tango' from the musical 'Chicago'.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 04:25 PM
1

its only since right libertarians have been re writing history has the "nazis were socialists" thing come up. Then it must have been the "right libertarian time travel squad" that got them to name their party the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National-Socialist German Workers' Party). With that kind of power one wonders how they haven't conquered the planet yet. Then again, now-a-days you can get away with hating people more easily when you call them "greedy capitalists" rather…
/r/MensRights21/01/18 07:05 AM
2

You forgot to switch accounts before replying to yourself.
/r/MensRights21/01/18 05:23 AM
3

Tzun Tzu Sun Tzu 孫子 FTFY
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:48 PM
1

The government built the housing to avoid a collapse of the system. What collapse? You're just assuming that there was one, and stating it as fact. Homelessness and suicide has been on the rise since the beginning of the neoliberal movement. More assumptions stated (or implied) as fact. order to free the market they assassinate or invade that country to free its market But they preach a doctrine of weakness and subservience (no force) You have that exactly backwards - they don't want people to i…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:23 PM
2

There is a housing crisis in all countries that embraced free market ideas So if we go back to this list, and compared it with this one (sorted by ratio), you're suggesting that there would be a strong correlation? All I'm seeing is that countries that aren't economically free don't usually do surveys of the homeless, and even if there was some correlation, how could we demonstrate that it's causal? I don't believe singpores housing crisis is not related to wage suppression and a lack of rent an…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 11:58 AM
2

And whats the excuse for Chile and New Zealand? Is this an admission that there never was a free-market-induced housing crisis in Singapore that forced the government to start providing housing, and that was a lie? the British claimed property rights here, so they owned all the land This is what the free market is about These two statement together show that you have no idea what the term 'free market' even means.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:20 AM
1

Housing has been a government near-monopoly since before Singapore had more than a few villages. We have the situation with land monopolies because the free market, not in spite of it. Again with the blatant lies, in contradiction not only with your own sources, but the repeatedly reiterated statement of fact in the post to which you replied. Best of luck with the evangelism.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 10:00 AM
1

Freemarket 80% getting less well off, 20% getting more well off leads to housing problems. What free market? Scratch that, what market? Housing has been a government near-monopoly since before Singapore had more than a few villages. Again, this 'free market hellhole' situation only ever existed in your head. There isn't any such thing as a free market anyway... None of that drivel, even if it were true, would excuse lying about it.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 09:34 AM
1

Singapore isn't isolated. Sure, but you haven't even been able to show that Singapore's housing situation originated with anything like a free market. But you can find an excuse for every free market failure on propaganda sites paid for by billionaires that are treated like gospel. I find most of my facts in the articles you link to. You ... well, look what you did with the housing issue: Most people got priced out the housing market, wages aren't good enough, the government had two choices, let…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 11:13 PM
2

Recently, Duolingo hit a milestone that we are very proud of: our incoming software engineer hires from universities have reached a 50:50 gender ratio. Notice the wording; "incoming software engineer", emphasis on incoming. Don't ignore the "from universities" part, either. As a developer, all I get from this is that the "intern/code monkey/rote CRUD functionality" tier of their organization can afford to hire based on politics. They're still giving themselves room to get their experienced new h…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:55 PM
1

Once again the specific topic being discussed has disappeared from the conversation - as far as I'm concerned that's yet another admission that I was right. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:32 PM
1

Most people got priced out the housing market, wages aren't good enough, the government had two choices, let the system fail or provide housing. No, this is a continuation of the housing policies from the time it was a colony. There literally wasn't a 'post-hut' time when the government didn't dominate the housing market, so that dilemma only ever existed in your mind. Freeer markets are corralated with rises in homelessness and poverty, its been happening all over the west for decades, driving …
/r/MensRights19/01/18 09:23 PM
1

You're still pointing to an area of the economy with absolutely massive government intervention and blaming its problems on 'the market'. If the government takes 90% of the land, you might have a problem with homelessness - but that's not the market doing it. Since the government created and then 'fixed' the problem you reflexively sing their praises, while making wild guesses about what it would be like if the government hadn't gone down that particular path. I'm sorry, but these are the belief…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:53 PM
1

The US mortage deductions - this is welfare for people that don't need it for the most part. So you understand that just because the government supports housing, that doesn't mean that everyone who uses it would otherwise be homeless. So why doesn't that apply to Singapore? Well: We are taking about government housing for people who other wise couldn't afford rent in Singapore. The government basically stole 90% of the land, as your own article points out. Then they generously allow people to li…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:30 PM
1

90% of people in singapore live in housing built by and subsidized by the government. Even if your percentage was right (and it isn't), does that mean that they'd all be homeless without it? No. For the most part it would just mean that there would be a larger market for private housing. But nice job dropping the mortgage deduction bit. I mean, you run away from your claims all the time, but in this case you didn't even bother addressing a single point made in the post to which you replied.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:33 PM
1

You can keep repeating the same nonsense, but it's not helping your case. No, because these people wouldn't have a roof over their heads with out it. You're really suggesting that if middle-class Americans couldn't deduct ~1% of their income from their taxes, they'd be homeless? That none would have gotten cheaper houses or apartments, or just cut back elsewhere? That this tiny adjustment is the only thing standing between the status quo and what would effectively be the collapse of civilization…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:18 PM
1

No, the right dress up in left wing terms. As usual, bad left-wing ideas are just relabeled right-wing to absolve your religion of responsibility. men got better wages, better health care and so on via using government And higher taxes that go towards women, arbitrary child support, a sexist educational system, ... But if you admitted that government was a mixed bag, you'd have to allow discussion of a range of ideas. 60% of men in singapore need welfare to house themselves For at least the thir…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:59 PM
1

I know from track records and logic that its stupid for men who are already suffering economic stress due to right wing policies to push for those policies to get more extreme than they all ready are. And your mirror image keeps pointing out that whenever the government gains power it uses that power to hurt men. At least a broken clock is right twice a day, but you're a broken record. “One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:18 PM
1

I don't subscribe to any one thing. Pretty sure you do. They also have to ignore the fact that the terms libertarian and anarchy were appropriated by their movement For you, as with feminists, words have to mean what you want them to mean or you don't even have an argument.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:07 PM
2

I don't think you understand the theory of evolution well enough to get this stuff that seems obvious to me. Oh, this is going to be funny. And we're talking about boosting birth rate not "not cutting back". I am not. I'm suggesting that, for many living things, until a literal lack of nutrition or extreme crowding takes it toll, that its reproductive rate remains more-or-less constant. But we're not comparing rabbits with rabbits, we're comparing large groups of rabbits with other large groups …
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:57 PM
1

There is no one true religion. People in a cult never think they're in a cult. I hope you get out someday.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 12:17 PM
1

The ISM part is only used for right libertarianism afik. There is libertarian, and right libertarianISM. American right libertarians and feminists are very alike. Whatever the one true religion teaches.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 11:33 AM
1

Evidence is that the right libertarian movement is deep state and billionaire funded. Kicked off in puppet dictatorships and that it leads to more poverty for us and more wealth for the billionaires. VOX isn't left, its part of the neoliberal corporate media. There isn't any reason for the corporate media not to respond negativly against the book, why wouldn't they? If you say so. Interesting that NPR has somehow escaped similar influence from either side. Its right libertarianISM, that its a fa…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:45 AM
1

I looked the evidence and stopped believing. That's great, because beliefs based on evidence are open to being changed, so... Thats only one of many sources, and the re-buttals are paid for by billionaires interests groups, the same billionaires that are campaigning for ending pollution regulations and welfare for the wealthy, the other source is a credible historian. ...I forgot who I was talking to. Well, enjoy your faith.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:22 AM
1

I did believe in invisible hands and all this freedom stuff from the right before. Ah, yes. The 'I used to be an atheist until God opened my eyes' maneuver. I'm now able to show right libertarians that it doesn't work. I'm sorry, but if you can't convince someone who merely has some libertarian sympathies, such as myself, I doubt you have many converts. Based on following a top down ideology, an astroturf movement to help facilitate the take over of government by billionaires. So you read the ar…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 09:58 AM
1

I speculate possibly personal greed Oh, yeah. That's me for sure. /s I mean, I willingly gave away almost 10% of my income last year, but... Do liberals that came through the education system there do that? Even they're not as confused and closed-minded as you. Have you ever been in the vicinity of an educational system? You might like it. I put it to you that are not thinking for yourself. Based on a book being shilled by NPR? Democracy in Chains, which has been thoroughly debunked by left, rig…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 09:32 AM
1

Once again you are supporting oppression of people. So to cover up your failure you once again lie about my motives. 60% in singapore on some sort of welfare to avoid mass homelessness. That's how many get a housing subsidy - there's no reason to think most would be homeless without it. You are like a tankie that clings onto to the idea that another go at stalinism might work. Ah, projection, my old friend. This is why many americans cannot stand the idea of welfare or healthcare for those that …
/r/MensRights19/01/18 08:40 AM
1

Look at any right libertarian system or economy that is rated as more free by the right libertarian info outlets. They tend to be dictatorships [Here's a list] I'm seeing mostly democracies at the top Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, and "the latin american countries" So your proof that they "tend to be dictatorships" is a list of four democracies, and a vague reference. Thank you, once again, for the laugh. (As a side note, that factoid about Singapore is just as wrong now as the last …
/r/MensRights19/01/18 03:09 AM
1

Being the tenth wife of sultan Do I have to say the obvious? a society has only one ruler. Do I have to say the obvious? I was illustrating a point by spelling out what happens at the extremes. expand to the maximum that food production can support and then stay there or quite close to it. And yes I know about predator prey cycles. ... But regardless when i say the max I mean this dynamic and not a static number. But that's doesn't have anything to do with food, nor is it an appropriate use of t…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 02:58 AM
1

Libertarian means no gods, no masters. That's one way to interpret it, yes. Its the origional idea. The right fought on the sides of the monarchs, the religious oppression, and now the side of the corporate masters. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. Look at any right libertarian system or economy that is rated as more free by the right libertarian info outlets. They tend to be dictatorships with huge financial pressure on the majority, and a small super rich elite class. I'm seeing …
/r/MensRights18/01/18 11:04 AM
1

Libertarian means no gods, no masters. That's one way to interpret it, yes. Right wing small government means government still exists to facilitate the capitalist masters market It exists, with limited powers, to protect people (including their property), not to 'facilitate' anything. so you end up with a strong state and strong corporate masters How does a small state with limited powers lead to a strong state? I honestly don't get this. Your government has to have all of the powers a libertari…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 10:21 AM
3

I'll let GWW speak for herself, but my understanding of the "Libertarian narrative" was more like this: Being the tenth wife of sultan means you still have as many kids as you would with a normal man, but with more resources to raise them. Being the tenth husband of a queen means that there's a good chance that you end up with no biological children at all. Women being more willing than men to share partners leads to men with no partner that society can afford to lose and who are also willing to…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 01:28 AM
1

In the absence of a libertarian situation - no gods no masters (corporate or otherwise) government plays or can play a vital role in limiting the masters and easing hunger by spreading more money and more middle class jobs around the economy. What I hear you saying is that when there are no other masters, government can the the master and it will do that job well. Again, it's fine to advocate for that, but that it isn't libertarian. Libertarian means no gods no masters - meaning corporate master…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 12:26 AM
1

it becomes extremely difficult to just move on and ignore them. I'm not saying that you ignore them, you call their bluff: "You're for equality. OK, what do you think about the draft/presumptive joint custody/MGM?" The real problem isn't the definition of the 'f'-word, is it? So focus on the root of the problem.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 01:16 AM
2

I am a feminist, that's why I fight for men's rights. Why don't you? (Arguing definitions is a waste of time - just move on to the areas where they aren't actually in favor of equality.)
/r/MensRights16/01/18 02:40 PM
1

What other institution will bring corporations to heel? The only one that ever did was left wing activism and regulations threw democratic government Exactly. You advocate for a large, powerful government. That means that you're not libertarian, left or otherwise. There's nothing wrong with that, but it would make it much easier to communicate with you if you'd just accept it. At this point it's like you're a pro-family pastor loudly shouting about how being caught with a male prostitute for the…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 01:38 PM
1

But if men have a lobby group for small government and women have a lobby group that protected them from the worst of capitalism, you end up with seperate rules. Also, if men have a lobby group for large government and women have a lobby group that protected them from the worst of socialism, you end up with separate rules. We might see a government where men pay huge amounts of money toward things that primarily help women, the law being construed in such a way that men get punished and women se…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 11:51 AM
1

This is where we differ, I say the genocide for profit is the real crime, you say those people forcing these companies to contribute to government programs to improve the welfare of the people and the country would be the real crime. I say that genocide for profit is the real crime, and forcing those companies (and those companies only) to fix the damage they've done, plus additional penalties, is the appropriate solution. Making all companies (or all rich people) pay for the crimes of a few is …
/r/MensRights16/01/18 09:24 AM
1

So I'll just keep asking "Do you believe in collective guilt? How far back does a crime have to take place before present-day accidental beneficiaries no longer owe reparations?" 100 of us are in a island That's not a response to what I wrote, and you realize that you and I are in that 1%, right? Left libertarian isn't about equality between the sexes, its about equality of outcome regardless of merit. No, adam smith said a free market Oh, wait. Half of the political spectrum isn't an undifferen…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 02:23 PM
1

Women have a sort of left wing lobby group, but its conservative I think this sums up your entire argument: words mean whatever I want them to mean at any particular instant. One moment 'right-wing' and conservative are synonyms, the next they're completely independent of each other. What's the purpose of the switch? So that two things you don't like end up in a single bucket, allowing you to blame them both for the sins of just one.
/r/MensRights14/01/18 10:40 PM
1

Again, I'm going to have to dismiss most of this for being too vague. You rail against 'them', who's crimes were committed by aristocrats, white collar criminals, and business interests backed by the state, but whose guilt can be laid upon the wealthy (inherited or not), anti-government activists, and pro-government activists with a different agenda. So I'll just keep asking "Do you believe in collective guilt? How far back does a crime have to take place before present-day accidental beneficiar…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 09:31 PM
1

What you do you do when people don't want to accept your 'humane agreement'? You could treat them like they do working class thieves and criminals, that would be equality, So it's an 'agreement' made under threat of force. This is not headed in a good direction. [It] isn't a criminal punishment, its letting them off very, very easy. Yep, no implied threat there. /s why do you speak for them so much? Because you keep attacking this group you can't even define clearly with threats of even vaguer c…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 02:17 PM
1

I believe that right libertarians genuinely believe the hype and promises of freedom and business success for them, and are very resistant to the information to the contrary. And in your case it's at least as true to say "I believe that left libertarians genuinely believe the hype and promises of freedom and equality for them, and are very resistant to the information to the contrary." At this point I'm going to stop re-explaining to you why business interests and free markets are not synonymous…
/r/MensRights14/01/18 01:09 PM
1

I respect him, I don't see it as an ism Every time you say something nutty about what 'right' libertarians believe he seems to be yours source. Not libertarians or libertarian groups, not Wikipedia, not even mainstream, neutral press coverage. If you're accusing people of treating something like a religion, try not to make it look like you have a bible. No there are lots of sources. A couple of billionaires have out-sized political influence. Not great, but you're dismissing an entire branch of …
/r/MensRights13/01/18 10:08 PM
1

I dont worship adam smith I was suggesting that you worship Chomsky. You know, they guy that said the quotes I included, who was in the title of the video you linked to (along with others you linked to), who isn't an economist but seems to be your source for economic knowledge? I think you are projecting because right libertarianism is a lot like a religion with capitalism and government as god and satan Do you remember when Churchill said "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst for…
/r/MensRights13/01/18 07:40 PM
1

Other people have been manipulated into only seeing big government as the problem. I realize you worship the guy, but he's not an economist, and is blatantly wrong about some things: "the government is the one institution in which the people can change" and "corporations are pure tyrannies". How many people do you know that have Android phones? How many have Google Glass? That's because consumers have more control over Google than the reverse. I mean, how many Google-backed products have failed?…
/r/MensRights13/01/18 03:43 AM
1

As far as I know, nobody is trying to recreate Stalinism, while we are already in far right systems and there are people advocating right libertarianism and nazism. That's how you see things, and that's fine. Other people see a gigantic dysfunctional government one one side, and quasi-nazis and anti-capitalist groups clashing in the street on the other, and then start to think that smaller government might be a good alternative. There is no such thing as a free market I'm not trying to convince …
/r/MensRights12/01/18 02:54 AM
1

The free speech argument is about state oppression. That's the legal right to free speech. The principle I'm defending is much broader. Its more astue people being, well ... astute. No, that's just what self-entitled jerks tell themselves when they want to assuage their own guilt. This is also exactly what people say when they want to shut up communists - "it's been tried and it sucks". You want the right to point out the problems with that simplistic story, but you're unwilling to grant your op…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 12:57 PM
26

All she has to do is say sorry I'm not interested or you know... She has to say 'sorry'! You entitled misogynist! You think you deserve basic courtesy? Such a rape apologist! /s
/r/MensRights11/01/18 11:13 AM
1

I'm laughing so hard right now. Thats not a right wing ideal When I stand up for their free speech, that's me standing up for my ideals. If I didn't stand up for them, I would be failing my own standards. The things they stand for are irrelevant. The authoritarian left is also called the right wing of the the left. LOL - just slap your go-to label that means 'bad' on it, and your job is done! No, it was the left that ran the big anti war protests, the right opposed it. You define groups not by c…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 10:44 AM
1

A right wing mra falling for nazis playing the victim and supporting them. Standing up for the free speech rights of people you don't like is what you do when you value free speech as a right. It's OK that you don't care about it, but some of us do. He was claiming a protest by antifa of neonazis was stopping their free speech. When antifa deliberately starts fights in order to prevent speech, they're stopping their free speech. We were talking about neonazis. I was referring to roughly the time…
/r/MensRights11/01/18 09:12 AM
1

genocidal speech isn't to be confused with protected speech, its routine - or it has been routine until the recent resurgence of fascism to shut down nazis First, Nazi speech is protected speech, period. If you don't like their speech, counter-protest, or even better. If you don't mean 'protected speech' as in the legal term, then I'll have to fall back on the general defense of free speech below. Second, nothing libertarians advocate for is even remotely close to genocide or murder, or even jus…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 02:53 AM
1

Can you clarify what you mean by my trying to prevent people having a voice? I might think your economics and history are nutty, but I don't think it will affect anything. When you say things like 'free-marketers can't be MRAs and shouldn't be allowed to post here' and 'Nazi speech isn't free speech' you're attacking things far more important and fragile. right libertarian free markets can be dismissed because its already been tried and rejected Yep, but socialism and communism haven't, because …
/r/MensRights09/01/18 12:35 PM
1

Before the french revolution the peasants were starving while the aristocrats hoarded vast wealth, when there were bread riots the aristocrats had the peasants massacred. A group of people weren't allowed to own property, were forced to pay high taxes, and who weren't allowed to have a voice in how things worked. And you're using them to help your case for preventing people from having a voice in a discussion about how things should work, so that you can tax them heavily and take their property?…
/r/MensRights09/01/18 03:43 AM
1

The jewish conspiracy theory was something that hitler invented to scapegoat a group for problems caused by capitalism. Hitler was burning jewish witches. So the only thing Hitler did wrong was kill the wrong group of people? And you're not authoritarian? Same with capitalism, and rising inequality thats a real thing, not a witch. Income disparity is real, but so was the plague. The problem was made worse when people found an easy scapegoat, purged that 'evil' from society, and found that they w…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 02:38 PM
1

Witch burning is the result of top down religious ideology. The ruling class used to hide behind organized religion and murdered anyone who thought for themselves. Yes, but then you say things like: Aristocrats are thieves, parasites and mass murderers, thats how that class became what they are. Don't listen to people that made their money by stealing, crime, exploitation and oppression crying about how they are being stolen from. ... and can't seem to see the parallels. You don't seem to get th…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 01:55 PM
0

men usually always have power and authority over women in relationships women still seek men who are more powerful than them You realize that those aren't the same thing, and the second is essentially what I'm saying, right? You sound like someone who is going to get horrendously taken advantage of in the future by a woman because you put them on a pedestal. I point out that women like having certain kinds of power in relationships (e.g. control over reproduction), and that's putting them on a p…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 01:46 PM
1

Despite the double talk, and revisionism Nixon ended the Brettom Woods. Yes, that he ended it is a fact, it's not in dispute. The only thing I'm disputing is that it must be 'double talk' or revisionism. I don't know how repeating the fact is supposed to convince me of the interpretation. Keyesian economics dont't come back until after there the right crashed the system again. Your own citation literally has a section titled "Keynesian ascendancy 1939–79", which would suggest that Keyesian ideas…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 09:37 AM
1

I'll try a different approach: Men usually always have power and authority over women in relationships I'd suggest that women like men who have power over other people or situations, not over women, or especially themselves. It's not like most women think "OMG, it would be so hot if I was so dependent on my husband financially that I couldn't leave him" or "men should have veto power over abortion". They want a guy who can support them, take the lead in the sack, and fight off another man who at…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:30 AM
1

Men usually always have power and authority over women in relationships anyways, because that's what women seek out. Women do tend to prefer men who are dominant, but you know that's not the same thing as having power, right?
/r/MensRights08/01/18 02:11 AM
1

So no mention of Keynesians at all - you know that thing that you injected into this conversation? But I guess when you've lost an argument the best tactic is to change topics. Couldn't the up tick in productivity be attributed to the increase in automation over the years? ... In the 50s and 60s there was automation and the profits were shared with the workers. Great, I'm sure you have some random thing that you think proves that. Just for the sake of irony make it an out-of-context quote from a…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 01:52 AM
1

So no mention of automation at all - you know that thing that started this conversation? But I guess when you've lost an argument the best tactic is to change topics. an essential part of my argument will be to show that Keynes viewed a pure fiat regime as being both highly unlikely and highly undesirable. So one guy has a hypothesis that ... "... may appear surprising in light of the popular perception that in the General Theory Keynes tried to move away from the open-economy, international gol…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 11:17 PM
1

What else would move to the right mean ... ? You responded to a comment about automation, agreeing that it was possible, so ... something related to automation? The system was changed in the early 70s. Nixon basically ended the bretton woods and removed the gold standard and printed a ton of money. Yes, other than quibbling over what 'a ton of money' means, those are well-established facts. We came off the Keynesian system and started using right wing economic instead. So Nixon made a policy cha…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 09:07 PM
1

Couldn't the up tick in productivity be attributed to the increase in automation over the years? Could be, we moved to the right around that time. So if we hadn't 'moved right', we wouldn't have automation? How do you figure that? Basic reading comprehension? What else was "we moved to the right around that time" supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:04 PM
1

Put up the good fight, less for us more them even though we do the real work, you know it makes sense and you arent a victim of brainwashing at all! Yep, 'they' don't do real work, we can't let 'them' speak, and you're completely immune to changing your mind. You're not a authoritarian zealot at all! /s Still, the american system, and a totally free market system has built in incentives to sell unnecessary procedures to the public, wouldn't regulating it distort the market anyway? America doesn'…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:04 PM
1

Its like your not a person. It's "you're", a contraction of "you are". On the other hand since you can't read or write I probably shouldn't be making fun of you.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 06:43 AM
1

a house with (eg) 20 nursing students could be in one of the top percentages of household incomes The worse things get the more households there are that are similar to that. I agree that will throw things off, but I doubt that the population in 'non-family households' has varied enough to make a large difference. With the number of people living in college dorms and retirement homes, I'd almost expect the average number of adults per household to have gone down over the last half-century, rathe…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 04:26 AM
1

It's like you didn't read the "Criticism" section at all.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 02:44 AM
11

No. At least at one point there were a couple of countries where girls were more likely to be cut than boys, but only moderately. More importantly MGC is legal essentially everywhere, while FGC is illegal almost everywhere (though it's unevenly enforced). Oddly enough this mirrors the history of gay rights - it's always been either legal, illegal, or illegal for men and legal for women. It just doesn't seem to be possible to only have specifically anti-lesbian laws or anti-MGC laws.
/r/MensRights07/01/18 02:28 AM
1

Yes, on the surface it does look better, but it's still household income. The OP's graph is about hourly rates which eliminates compensating for stagnation by working more hours or jobs either as an individual or member of a household. And since I agree with that, I don't know what we're arguing about. You linked to the larger context that was missing. So that's no longer an issue. You don't seem to be suggesting that the original post was a good way defense of the vaguely implied position of th…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 01:55 AM
1

That graph in the original post is from this page. There, they seem to indicate that the graph is for all non-supervisory workers in all sectors, so more or less constituting the bottom 2/3 of people. Great! That goes a long way toward reconciling the facts I have with each other, though I'm not sure how well that correlates with 'the bottom 2/3 of people'. So without even accounting for changes in the labor force, the rate at which gains went to the working and middle classes decreased tremendo…
/r/MensRights07/01/18 12:34 AM
1

I am not a fan of the US metric of household income in the first place, since it really tells us very little about individual income. Hidden in those figures is increasing female participation in the workforce and families with children who can't afford to move out. House prices not being included in inflation figures. I agree. From the first paragraph, there's only a 0.45% increase in median household income from 2000 - 2016. Yes, 2000-2015 'sucked donkey balls', to use the technical term. If y…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:37 PM
2

Um, that chart agrees PERFECTLY with the one piece of information you cited. I guess I should have linked to a better source or explained in more detail. You'll notice that the charts from CB data don't have as sharp an inflection point in 1972 (though it is hard to tell), nor the uniform, sagging curve in the middle, and have peaks for all incomes around 2000 and 2006. That's what makes me think that this is the increase of wages for a particular group (manufacturing, union employees) or using …
/r/MensRights06/01/18 11:26 PM
3

Wage stagnation is talking about wages in real terms - ie adjusted for inflation. Yes, and those are adjusted for inflation. Here's an easy to read version, the CB tends to just put out data in tables of new data.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:28 PM
1

All wages have been like that Wrong, but you decided to spam up yet another thread, so I'll see you there. Americans pay about 8x more for health care than do people in europe. It's more like double. As I said before almost half of US healthcare spending is directly from the government, most of the rest through mandated insurance coverage through an employer, and all of it is under an extremely heavy and dysfunctional regulatory regime. I don't know how pointing out the flaws in the least-free-m…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:19 PM
3

Couldn't the up tick in productivity be attributed to the increase in automation over the years? Could be, we moved to the right around that time. So if we hadn't 'moved right', we wouldn't have automation?
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:11 PM
7

A group with an agenda highlights the statistics that help them promote that agenda. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, it just means that they aren't giving the whole picture. And more importantly, why wasn't that what you first linked to? This is orders of magnitude more useful.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 09:05 PM
2

Its been a common enough topic, its not controversial to say the people have been stagnating while the top have made record gains. No, it's not. As I said "Wages for even the bottom quintile of workers have increased about 30% in the last half-century" and it's also true the the increase for the top quintile is about 90%. That's what most people are talking about when they say 'wage stagnation' or 'increased income disparity'. But your chart seems to be suggesting <10% growth in wages in general…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 08:59 PM
19

A chart from a source with an agenda, no context, and that conflicts with Census Bureau data I already know about. Wages for even the bottom quintile of workers have increased about 30% in the last half-century - that might not be great, but it's not the same as saying that essentially no growth has happened. I'm going to guess that the chart is for manufacturing jobs only (or something similar), which makes it a bit of a red herring.
/r/MensRights06/01/18 08:06 PM
1

This chart should put this to bed. A chart from a source with an agenda, no context, and that conflicts with Census Bureau data I already know about. Wages for the bottom quintile have increased about 30% in the last quarter-century - that might not be great, but it's not the same as saying that no growth has happened. I'm going to guess that the chart is for manufacturing jobs only, which makes it a bit of a red herring. America, and her closes allies are still doing it. America is so capitalis…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 08:01 PM
1

The law you pointed out doesn't exist. It (and variations thereof) existed during the time period that you lauded. Men that can afford to contest the mother get awarded custody rights 80% of the time. Like the pay gap, that stat doesn't mean what you think it means. Simply granting free legal aid Or presuming joint custody. Or what about ditching the lawyers altogether? I doesn't matter if you blame greedy lawyers or corrupt government, we all know something is broken when you have to pay someon…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 07:12 PM
1

Nah, I pointed out men were better off ( meaning fiancially) and you stared taking about a law thats no longer on the books. You said "Men were doing just fine when we were further to the left." and when asked when this was you said "late 1970s / early 1980s". At no point did you object to me pointing to non-economic (or only tangentially economic) issues. Plus, the law I pointed out was economic (in the sense that it separated custody and financial responsibility), and was on the books during t…
/r/MensRights06/01/18 02:02 AM
2

Men we better off fiancially, prior to the 1980s, Thats what I meant. That's exactly the right thing to do. When you're wrong, change your mind. Keynesian model was ditched in the 1980s, they used the chilian dictatorship as "proof" . It was modified to include new ideas because it wasn't working. You really think that the entire government went from Nixon's "We are all Keynesians now" to completely ditching it in a single decade? Where do you think we got Neo-Keynesianism? None of the other boo…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 05:23 AM
1

Symbiotic relationships don't allow to identify one side as "the givers," so clearly this isn't analogous to "symbiote." You don't seem to think that a relationship can exist between A and B where both benefit, but one benefits much more. I didn't say anything like that. Then either I'm not understanding you, or you're insisting that the side that benefits much more can't possibly (even as an analogy) be receiving a 'gift'. It's a matter of reversing which side "dies off" while the other waits. …
/r/MensRights05/01/18 03:11 AM
2

Australia, Manitoba (Canada), The Netherlands (until 2004), ...? None of these countries are running a business out of circumcising boys. All of them pay/paid doctors to circumcise boys without medical need, so... Its only american men that that are routinely circumcised in western countries. Canada and Australia have rates about half that of the US - that's still 'routine'. In South Korea the circumcision rate is even higher than the US's, and they're only that way because of western influence.…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 02:21 AM
1

The whole reason for the One Big Union of capitalists -- the whole reason for the strike -- is to illustrate that the capitalists don't need the workers. That's only slightly true, in the sense that they can preform physical labor on their own. They'd still obviously be better off running their companies than in the gulch - that's why it's a place to wait out the storm, not the final destination - it's also why the people in the gulch are described as doing menial labor while they wait, the work…
/r/MensRights05/01/18 01:07 AM
1

This is pointless splitting of hairs. ... You really don't seem to have a point beyond endlessly quibbling about language. Is that your way of admitting that you're technically incorrect without admitting that you're wrong? We're not talking about sharing information though, we're talking about physical access to physical machines. We were? Fine, I let you use my wrench for a few minutes, which you use to fix something. I have done no labor, and I haven't lost anything, but I have given you some…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 04:58 AM
1

But now you're not even talking about the right words. Well, I certainly don't know what you're talking about now. It was to that phrasing, in terms of "giving away free work," that you said "No, not really." Yes, that's incorrect. Capitalists share some of the value that they create from the result of the work. That's not the same thing as giving away 'work'. If I show you a shortcut that lets you get work done faster, I haven't done any of the work, but I have given you something valuable. And…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 03:58 AM
1

Rand says the capitalists are giving away free work to the workers But she really did say that. I quoted where she said that. Uh ... no, she did not. Saying that they 'create value' (i.e. convert labor into something more valuable) and that some of that value is 'gifted' to the workers is not the same thing as saying the workers are useless and they don't deserve what they earn.
/r/MensRights04/01/18 03:09 AM
2

Thats just bs thats fed to right libertarian people. To an extent, yes. Just as yours is BS fed to reflexively authoritarian leftists. Stefan Molyeneux tried to pass off that story and got his ass handed to him in short notice. So a couple of bloggers argued, and according to you the one you already agreed with won. Totally, like, rekt, d00d. And the first argument in the post you linked to was 'yeah, the Fed did help cause the crisis, but other recessions happened so there'. And then there's wh…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 02:38 AM
1

In the big picture view, Marx says the workers are giving away free work to the capitalists, and Rand says the capitalists are giving away free work to the workers. No, not really. Take an situation where someone works for an hour to make something, their boss sells it for $20, and pays the worker $10. Marx (using the theory that labor is value) says that the hour of work was the only labor that went into the job, then that labor was really worth $20 by definition. That means that the boss 'inte…
/r/MensRights04/01/18 01:53 AM
1

After the free market days and the great depression there was the one job one family system, economic stability and growth and social mobility due to progressive legislation So the Fed wrecked the economy and the New Deal held back the recovery, but the largest war in history then wrecked the industrial base of nearly every other first world country and the government started meddling less/differently, which allowed a period of sustained growth? I don't know what 'progressive legislation' had to…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:30 PM
2

To be fair the book is an in principle defense of "capitalism" in the Marxist sense, i.e. it does reject the claim that voluntary employment relationships are inherently exploitative of the employees. The book is a defense of her entire philosophical worldview, and since it directly contradicts Marx on several levels it is, in that narrow sense, a defense of capitalism. But that's still missing the larger picture. That said, the book clearly attacks cronyism, and it doesn't attack worker-owned f…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 05:53 AM
1

Don't you think that's splitting hairs? Between 'stealing' and 'giving'? Christmas at your house must be a bit strange. More importantly, between the thing Rand says is evil and the thing she says should be praised? No matter what else is true she thinks they're quite different, which is kind of important if you're going to understand what she's trying to express in her novel.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 05:42 AM
1

Rand says that the workers don't deserve it, because the capitalists do. Completely wrong. Yet she did say that about the steelworkers, right? I quoted it, right? No. The fact that their higher wages are a 'gift' in no way implies that it needs to be given back.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:41 AM
2

this implies that wages are theft? It's not implied. It's directly stated. My mouth is actually hanging open at the strangeness of this statement. I'm going to have to disagree with /u/YetAnotherCommenter on this one - you have to have read the book to misinterpret it that badly. You've thrown a bunch of quotes out - don't hold back with this one. Both proponents and opponents take it to be defending capitalists. Only in the sense that they're some of the good guys.
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:37 AM
1

Marx says that the capitalists don't deserve it, because the workers do. Yes, exactly. Rand says that the workers don't deserve it, because the capitalists do. Completely wrong. True she doesn't use the word "parasite." She does, however, describe the concept that the word "parasite" is used to denote. Yes, she does describe them: The three groups she describes are people who labor with their mind, people who labor with their body, and people who don't labor at all. She praises the first, tells …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 04:16 AM
1

Whatever quibbling you are having about Marx is completely irrelevant distraction. You're saying that a Marx's ideas are a distraction from a discussion of one of Marx's ideas? If you want to focus on Rand, that's fine, but that wasn't the original point of contention. The laboring classes are portrayed as parasites even just because they get more out of their labor than they deserve. You don't seem to get that Rand distinguishes between people who do work, but are vastly more productive because…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 02:30 AM
1

The powers that be still use the new left to distract people. The 'powers that be' use everything to distract people, and make deals with anyone. The only difference is that I don't think that those 'powers' are right or left wing (because they just want power), nor do I think that movements 'switch sides' when they corrupt them. So if they'd kicked out the MRM but kept doing stuff for poor women, that would have kept it left wing? No, that would still marginalize the mens movement. So even with…
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:49 AM
3

Ah, I see. The original statement was: Subjective value makes "economic parasitism" in the Marxist sense (or a simple inversion of that) impossible. This is referring only to the idea that profit without labor is necessarily theft - that any time someone makes money through trade they must have cheated someone. Rand did talk about parasites a lot, but not the kind Marx was talking about - her parasites didn't make money by owning capital or preforming labor, but rather by forcing others to give …
/r/MensRights03/01/18 01:08 AM
3

Sorry to butt in here, but you seem to be stuck in a loop. YetAnotherCommenter feel free to correct me. If the value of blood is subjective, doesn't that imply leeches are not parasites? Why not? They are. I don't think YetAnotherCommenter meant to imply that the subjective theory of value made all parasitism impossible, but only that it made "economic parasitism in the Marxist sense" impossible. To use a biological analogy: From a Marxist perspective, if a tree uses calories (labor) to make fru…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 03:05 PM
1

Nobody said that. Transgender rights came later, as part of the postmodern / feminist movement the cia and capitalist foundations created. Ok, so all of this 21st century stuff is at most just an unintended, distant consequence of CIA meddling. You aren't suggesting any large-scale current influence? Yes we know, the feminist movement insisted it stopped being left, and concentrated on upper class women. So if they'd kicked out the MRM but kept doing stuff for poor women, that would have kept it…
/r/MensRights02/01/18 02:31 PM
1

No I and others have done lots of research on it and gathered the evidence. Evidence that the CIA was promoting transgender rights in the 50's??? Its not a theory when there is evidence. There's evidence that supports the theory of evolution, so ... ? The left wing was the mens movement. Who wins if its replaced by rich girls shouting down the mens movement. That already happened. The 'left wing' (if we have to put it that way) did have pro-men's-rights feminists up until the 70s, but then they …
/r/MensRights01/01/18 08:10 AM
2

I also saw your cia.gov post, both are appreciated.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 03:09 AM
3

Much appreciated.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:48 AM
2

this is only "controversial" in the sense that it challenges commonly held notions That's great. Would you mind linking to a mainstream/neutral source? It would be appreciated for a variety of reasons.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:46 AM
3

Thats because of people like you blaming imaginary communists and thinking right center idpol is the far left. So your source is full of UFO nutters because people 'like me'? Even though other people found reliable sources in almost no time? Even though (back in our original thread) I just wanted evidence before deplatforming libertarians? And now you linked me to a new post of yours talking about the CIA 50 years ago, that still isn't relevant to our original conversation. Good luck, dude.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:41 AM
1

Yes.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 02:32 AM
1

You are still out of your depth here. lol not a "conspiracy theory" But the only link goes to a page with the categories "Conspiracy Archive" and "New World Order" which leads to articles like: "Water-Powered Cars & Inventors Killed" "JFK Murdered Over UFO Secret Briefing" "9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks" Read some of the evidence that the right is behind modern feminism and idpol. At best stuff from half a century ago. Find evid…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:33 AM
6

not a "conspiracy theory" Following the link in the OP and looking at other stories: "Water-Powered Cars & Inventors Killed" "JFK Murdered Over UFO Secret Briefing" "9/11 Attacks: Criminal Foreknowledge and Insider Trading lead directly to the CIA’s Highest Ranks" Dude, they already think we're nuts.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:32 AM
1

First google result First, you misspelled it in your original post: 'idopl'. Again, not even valid English, shorthand or otherwise. (Then you mocked me for not knowing what the non-word meant, remember?) Second, you do realize that different people get different results, right? After I fixed your spelling I eventually get a useful link, but not in the first few. You are out of your depth here You've dropped every single argument we've discussed when you realized you were failing miserably. You'r…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 01:12 AM
1

you dont even know idpol is common short hand for identity politics It was a joke, numbnuts. You know - "it's not (small category), it's not even (larger category)" to exaggerate how much it's not the first. That's how I'm making it though your incoherent ramblings. But it's certainly not common - for me even searching it in Google just leads to "Did you mean: idol" and the first three links are a hashtag, "words containing idopl", and "Unscramble Idopl". You guys need better PR. And it still is…
/r/MensRights29/12/17 12:31 AM
1

Marxists aren't right wing ... until they do something you don't like. Then I showed you what marxists think of center right neoliberal idopl. That sentence isn't a valid response. It isn't even valid English. I'll try a different way of making the same point: Is there anything the right could ever do that you'd applaud, and is there anything the left could ever do that you'd speak out against (other than being infiltrated by the right)? All the battles for whats right are against them Jesus, yo…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 11:15 PM
1

i showed you your mistake, I showed you what marxists think of right center liberal identity politics. Are you addressing the right person? Do you know what conversation this is? You can show me anything you like, but what claim did I make that you think was wrong? Same type, conservatives were shutting down civil rights, anti war and the rest of the left. Same type? Nonsense. Free speech is a left wing thing, the far right dont really care about it. So even when they argue for it and you argue …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 10:32 PM
1

You are making your mistakes because you never seen left wing media, or spoken to a marxist. I've 'made mistakes' ... that you can't point out. The only reason you even put this in is so you could drop all of the clearly failed lines of argument from the last post and still pretend you 'won'. Just concede or stop posting, man. Don't drag it out. You probably absorb junk media that tells you Obama and the like are communists, which is absurd. So you admit that make up straw men. Good to know. The…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 09:53 PM
1

his economics [is] virtue-signaling, ad-hom-filled trash Dismissing postmoderism and feminism as rightwing control isn't going to buy much virtue today. Yes. Good thing I didn't say that he did any of that. You just picked up on a buzzword for lack of a better argument. So I describe his economics, and you act like I was describing his views on other topics. I point out that those weren't the views I was describing, and link to the definition of the term. A few posts later you pretend the whole …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:42 PM
1

Dismissing postmoderism and feminism as rightwing control isn't going to buy much virtue today. Yes. Good thing I didn't say that he did any of that. No, like right libertarianism, gender studies and postmodernism are twisted, right wing appropriations Exactly. "Everything I don't like is right wing". Especially if they're left-wing Marxists - they're super-right-wing. And if we're whining about language, 'postmoderism' has an 'n', 'rightwing' usually has a hyphen, and 'the mens rights' at least…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 08:02 PM
1

If he was virtue signaling he wouldn't dismiss feminist social sciences and postmoderism as top down control. Virtue signalling is a term from evolutionary biology. Even though the pejorative use of the term is used more frequently by the right, it isn't a behavior specific to the left, let alone feminism. People on the right buy into religions, they are always wrong - evolution, enlightenment, freedom of speech, civil rights ... the right are always on the wong side of things. But you were just…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 07:03 PM
1

Chomsky is highly critical of identity politics and postmodernism. He also made some important contributions in linguistics and philosophy. That doesn't mean that his economics isn't virtue-signaling, ad-hom-filled trash. if I want to understand what scientology is I won't ask a true believe[r] Ever? Not even to double check what other people say? That's the kind of thing that keeps you in a bubble. I will go to some expert on cults Good idea. Read some mainstream economics, especially their vie…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:18 PM
1

The person you quoted is a liar. ... Chomsky said "RIGHT libertarian Adding 'right' might clarify, but it doesn't make him a liar. You just copy and pasted an ideologues comment on a you tube video. That's all it takes to refute you. You: The moon doesn't exist. Me: -points to full moon, clearly visible in the night sky- You: You're just pointing at an object!
/r/MensRights28/12/17 05:04 PM
1

Its pointless citing right libertarians. LOL - So when you want to know what MRAs and libertarians believe, don't talk to them, talk to feminists and socialist, who will tell you what they really believe.
/r/MensRights28/12/17 04:54 PM
1

LOL - someone who doesn't understand markets - at all For the rest, I'm just going to quote the higher-rated comments on those videos: So, according, to Comrade Chomsky, libertarianism means "...power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies..." ... When was the last time a Starbucks employee held a gun to your head and ordered that you buy coffee? I'd argue it's the exact opposite. The public at large has a bigger role in the market than in the government. I'm still …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 04:47 PM
1

An argument can't be left-wing any more than a fact can be right-wing or a scientific theory can be anti-woman. Homelessness, the right is against social safety nets, social housing, rent controls and regulated property and financial markets and the further right we drift the worse the homeless problem gets. Since I don't have all day, I choose homelessness, and will only use what I know off the top of my head. I'm sure you've come across Lindbeck's quote about "next to bombing, rent control see…
/r/MensRights28/12/17 03:59 PM
1

Mens rights arguments are inherently left wing. An argument can't be left-wing any more than a fact can be right-wing or a scientific theory can be anti-woman. Groups should protect themselves from appropriation Yes. In this case, I'm defending it from you. And since you didn't read it the first time - "You oppose them by arguing against them and down-voting them, like a civilized adult." Yeah, the right use left wing quotes about free speech now. Of course they do. The left abandoned its moral …
/r/MensRights28/12/17 12:48 AM
1

The right are using our arguments... On who's authority do you get to claim ownership of an argument? Who the hell do you think you are to ban people from using what you admit are correct arguments? ...to advocate for policies that are counter to mens rights. To oppose that should be a no brainer. If we support platforms that are hostile to mens rights, just because sjw's are de platforming them, we are idiots. You oppose them by arguing against them and down-voting them, like a civilized adult.…
/r/MensRights27/12/17 05:32 PM
1

Then why are the far right, milo and so on using our statistics and arguments... Because facts don't have a side, they belong to everybody. This obsession with making everything a left/right issues is the root cause of your problem - right and left are vague, clumsy descriptions of complex political positions, not groups with membership lists. When a right-wing person points out a new issue with the wage gap statistics do you say "oh, shoot, I'd love to use that, but one of them came up with it,…
/r/MensRights27/12/17 03:41 PM
1

The mrms intellectuals and historical battles have been left wing. Which isn't relevant. Just because men made most of the inventions throughout history isn't a justification for barring women from an inventors society. The entrism has been done by the right For which you have not provided any evidence. The CIA in France a half-century ago isn't this sub today, any more than the KGB in the Ukraine is this sub today. Nazi speech isnt protected speech. So you warn people against right-wing entryis…
/r/MensRights27/12/17 01:50 AM
1

I never meant to say that, Im left libertarian. ... Im saying that if the right libertarian movement co-opts the mens movement, then we went the same way as feminism, co-opted by the right and advocating against mens best interests. If you aren't saying that "free market advocates can't be MRAs" then we don't really have a disagreement. The other explanation is absurd on its face and has no proof You can't think of any other explanation? Then again you clearly still don't get that "X supports Y,…
/r/MensRights26/12/17 04:41 PM
1

You can't find feminist lemmings that know what feminism is really about either. If by that you mean that feminists define 'feminism' as advocating 'equality between the sexes' but actually work to privileged one sex and harm the other, I agree. But I don't believe that just because someone told me it was true, or because one groups of feminists did some bad things, or because I don't like them so any random 'bad' statement about them is true. I believe it because almost every time I read someth…
/r/MensRights26/12/17 04:03 AM
1

So feminism isn't marxism. ... They are not marxists. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm pointing out that your evidence is so terrible that if I were to lower my standards to the point where I accepted it as solid proof, I would also have to accept the existence of Marxist feminism as proof that feminists were all commies. Your argument is literally worse than an argument that I haven't bothered defending well. If a man and a woman are both applying for the same job, they are in competition by de…
/r/MensRights25/12/17 01:57 AM
1

Men and women aren't market compeditors. If a man and a woman are both applying for the same job, they are in competition by definition. People are collaborators, social animals. We are social animals, which means we both compete and cooperate. We aren't eusocial insects in a hive. Right wing ideology says that we are market compeditors, it used to say bow down in the church/state. Oddly enough not that long ago it was 'ungodly' to charge interest or to attempt to change one's station in life, t…
/r/MensRights24/12/17 03:40 AM
1

The wage gap argument is based in the underlying assumption that men and women are market compeditors instead of a collective that work together. They are. Even if we go full communist in the future that doesn't change the fact that right now men and women compete at work. [P.S. The actual flaw is in the how they define 'equal work'.] SWJism tells the lie that equality is reached when equal numbers of x, y z people hold positions... Yes, we might actually agree ... ... in authoritarian corporati…
/r/MensRights23/12/17 10:52 PM
1

Organized religion, authoritarianism be it right or left, feminism, right libertarianism (distinct from left libertarian) are all the enemy. Plenty of people would agree with the first three, but think that excessive government and Marxism are the problem. Others agree on all except religion, which they see as a positive force. Some even agree except for the feminism part, which they see as still good at its core and only the excessive fringes are opposing the MRM. So you have a choice: realize …
/r/MensRights23/12/17 09:23 PM
1

Right libertarianism is a movement for corporations and billionaires. Who are already fine, they don't need anyones help. Billionaires still get circumcised, lose custody of their children, and lose out in divorces. But you're jealous of them, not just to the point where you don't want to help them, but to the point that you want to prevent other people from helping them? That's ... sad. Except there is proof. If you go to the ford foundations site right now... ... I'll find proof that some peop…
/r/MensRights22/12/17 02:06 AM
1

Anyhow, the modern right libertarian / free market movement and the modern feminist movement can be traced back to the same capitalist and CIA front source. A statement without any support given, phrased exactly like a cartoonish conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 03:30 PM
1

Its a movement for average men That's what you want, I want it to be for all men.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 03:25 PM
1

So I point out why you're not persuasive, and you respond with more of the same. Almost all of the things that you're stated as facts are actually opinions, and rather extreme ones at that, with no meaningful support or reasoning given.
/r/MensRights21/12/17 02:58 PM
1

No. I was talking about right libertarians being the trojan horse, by advocating directly against what the mens movement is about. And they see you in exactly the same way - that was my point. The difference is that you're acting exactly the way a (very ineffective) 'Trojan horse' would: injecting your pet topic into every conversation, demanding the expulsion of heretics, and defending your position in ways that aren't going to be effective on anyone who's not already in agreement with you. Mea…
/r/MensRights21/12/17 06:19 AM
1

I am like a trojan horse Exactly. You want to destroy this movement in favor of one that advocates your economic ideology. Most of the rest of either disagree with your economic perspective, or simply don't want the MRM to have a particular position on economic policy. You can try to persuade us to change our minds, but trying to dictate who doesn't belong here is childish and asinine.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 02:46 PM
1

Whats divisive here is the group of mra who want to sell out ordinary guys to billionaires No, because they're not the ones saying that you can't be a part of this movement. You are the one advocating for a purity test, that makes you the asshole.
/r/MensRights19/12/17 11:23 AM
1

Siding with billionaires against everyone else, while advocating men have no safety nets is advocting for men to be oppressed as men. Exactly. You want to turn the MRM into a branch of socialism, and the rest of us don't want that. You're free to make your case, but if the rest us don't agree with your economic views, or don't want to change the focus of the movement, you're going to have to accept that. IOW it's fine to say that you think conservatives are worse for the MRM than liberals, and i…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 10:03 AM
3

decent standards for everyone Exactly, it isn't about men's rights as men, it's an entirely separate branch of general, human rights that you want to fight for. Which would be fine, except that you're willing to harm this movement in order to advance one that you care about more. The only realistic outcome of pushing free marketers/elites/whoever out is fracturing this tiny movement into even smaller sub-movements, none of which will have any real effect at all. Keeping us together does mean tha…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:17 AM
4

Conservatives generally oppose mens rights or want to go backwards on them. Yes, but the same is (generally) true of liberals. That's why the men's rights movement needs to stay focused on men's rights and deliberately set aside other topics - no existing groups are willing to help you, and you're not going to get far if you start kicking out people because they disagree with you about economics or gun control or NASA's budget or Taylor Swift's music. republicans organized destruction of the men…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:00 AM
4

ee4m is upset that we haven't led a Stalin-style purge of any remotely conservative people from the MRM. Pretty much. That's the whole point of 'infiltration' or 'entryism': to take over a smaller movement and merge it into a larger one. In this case take a groups that advocates for men's rights, push them to prioritize the positions that are compatible with the left and purge the ones that aren't, and you end up with more people helping to promote left-wing positions, but can keep men's priorit…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 05:43 AM
3

That's a new level of reading comprehension failure. That might be a citation about some people's views on anonymous donation, but you were asked a question specifically about child support.
/r/MensRights11/12/17 02:50 AM
33

Dead guys' mom: You just murdered my son! Trudeau: Wait a second, what about the 151,599 other people who died today? Why don't you care about them?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 02:08 PM
1

That's extremely unlikely. They seem to be at the stage where people in general know that some people want to ban it, and those people are disagreed with/debated rather than being mocked/dismissed. Germany had a court case that (briefly) banned it before the legislators could respond, and IMHO one of the Nordic countries is most likely to get the first ban that sticks. Heck, in Sweden even consensual FGC is illegal, so they're almost to the point where they'll be sensitive to even men's concerns…
/r/MensRights16/11/17 04:44 AM
2

I fucking despise MGM, but this comparison is bs. I realize it's not the best PR, but it's not incorrect. I don't get why we don't compare it more to things like Chinese foot binding, ... I love that idea. A poster with a mother/daughter pair who both have some obvious culturally-inflicted deformity, with "I know it hurts, but I want my child to look like me." on it. I'm tempted to just leave off the direct comparison, and let people make the connection independently or just have the blue and pi…
/r/MensRights07/11/17 01:01 AM
14

Some people still believe that, sure. The AAP even states that the benefits outweigh the risks - but explicitly does not recommend it. On the other hand, the vast majority of world's medical organizations disagree, some to the point of advocating that the practice be banned, even for religious reasons.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 04:20 AM
2

but not reporting a murder because a woman did it? That's a bit of a stretch. But it's not a 'wife murdering her husband' if: she killed in self defense (even if he was asleep at the time) she was temporarily 'insane' she did it with someone else (multiple killers, so doesn't count for this statistic) she convinced someone else to do it for her ("I'm so scared of him...") You don't need to hide the body in order to 'hide' a murder in the statistics. testosterone, which is proved causally linked …
/r/MensRights28/10/17 01:11 AM
5

But the comments are amazing, and not part of the archive: Well thank God I'm not a feminist then! This way I have no obligation to tolerate having my words and actions micromanaged by a female supremacist. If feminism believes women are this pathetic, inept, and entitled then comically it is the feminists who are the actual sexists. The article dose an excellent job in discouraging people from wanting to identify as feminist. As clearly illustrated Feminism is a pure hate movement and is also c…
/r/MensRights24/10/17 01:05 PM
6

Yep, Unfortunately this is the best excerpt I've been able to find. I love studies like this one. The actual result of the study can be summed up by "... the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV.", which it already biased because they use 'mutilation' rather than 'cutting' like most groups that try to be objective. But they start the discussion with: FGM is a form of violence against women ... it has remained a global problem ... And end the conclusion with: Concerted action shou…
/r/MensRights24/10/17 11:47 AM
1

It would have been really helpful to this discussion if you had read even part of the text i quoted. That wasn't part of the original quote you gave. A quote is what's between the quotation marks (hence the name), you don't get to pretend that you quoted (or linked to) the entire work when you didn't do that. And the was my original point - Proudhon and Rand wouldn't agree on much, but the single, short quote you gave didn't clearly express anything that either would disagree with. I'm not sayin…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 11:47 PM
1

'collective action' to cause that concurrence You seem to be conflating cuase and effect. Collective action is the result of that, not its cuase. Collective action is the result of 'the concurrence of so many different kinds of labor and skill'? No matter what caused that concurrence? So if I pay architects, construction workers, plumbers, and interior decorators to construct a house, that's 'collective action', even though it's purely capitalistic? And you think Marx would agree with that? It c…
/r/MensRights14/10/17 12:07 PM
1

Okn we choose to organize society You're getting off topic, and posts aren't a good medium for subjects that are that large. The purpose of equal liability to productive labor is to remove the stigma from manuel labor. The purpose of affermative action is to reinforce that stigma. OK, so what? At best you're quibbling between capital-M Marxists that align exactly with Marx and small-M marxists who use his framework but differ on some details. Maybe pointing that out is important in some cases, b…
/r/MensRights13/10/17 12:43 PM
1

I honestly can't make heads or tails of your response: ... set of (fairly involuntary) groups ... Begging the question. Sex is certainly not a social construct ... Melanin ... Who said it was? What about 'fairly involuntary' implied a social construct? I don't remember Marx using the phrase 'affirmative action' That[']s my point. Mar[x] understood that ... So your point was that Marx never said anything about affirmative action, but would probably be against it? And that's enough to make advocat…
/r/MensRights12/10/17 12:24 AM
2

these people are not marxists They aren't exactly Marxist in terms of class struggle, but they are basing much of their theory on Marxist historiography or historical materialism: "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." When you look at society as a set of (fairly involuntary) groups (race, class, sex, gender), rather than individuals and fairly voluntary groups then you are using a Marxist framework.…
/r/MensRights11/10/17 12:26 AM
1

A little confused here. OK. I'll try to explain my own perspective. A little confused here. Are you suggesting that if the BBC were to put out a video raising a women's rights issue, it would be biased reporting? No - assuming that they don't misrepresent anything, why would anyone object to that particular article? Why is bringing light to women's rights issues specifically considered biased, whereas bringing light to men's rights issues is commendable? They're both commendable - assuming that …
/r/MensRights08/10/17 11:03 PM
12

thinks too many people are “obsessed” by genetics The worst part is that this isn't even really about genetics, it's about trust, honesty and the ability to verify the truth when you have good reason to think that that trust has been violated. Can you imagine this guy telling a bunch of women that they're "obsessed" with fidelity? That "people see marriage as the sharing of some essence of self – that is delusional garbage" and that no matter how suspicious he's acting she shouldn't try to find …
/r/MensRights26/09/17 10:52 PM
2

You should have kept going. There's a lot of nonsense, but the higher numbers have some good stuff.
/r/MensRights23/09/17 09:12 PM
1

The period seems to be outside of the anchor tag. Another try.
/r/MensRights16/09/17 11:22 PM
1

you lot have become no better than those whiny feminists. We call feminists whiny because they spend their time griping about word choice and sitting posture, while pretending that they're advancing human rights, equality, and self determination. But when MRAs really do try to advance those things, you think they're just as whiny? Weirdly enough, I can't think of anything more 'feminist' than shaming men for daring to discuss an issue that they face.
/r/MensRights15/09/17 10:45 AM
1

Because... It's not important? It's not important to you. You realize that you don't get to choose that for other people, right? Actually the first part's not true. Whether you're just trolling or you have in irresistible urge to stop people from bringing up something you have strong feelings about, there's a reason you're still here. :)
/r/MensRights13/09/17 08:19 AM
4

Yet, all else being equal, a man is far more likely than a woman to be convicted, but somehow that isn't seen as discrimination. Or, for a different brand of feminist, it is discrimination, but not sexism, because ... uh ... sexism is prejudice plus power, and governments don't have power ... I mean, sexism is institutional, and the justice system isn't an institution ... er ... not systemic? ... Quit mansplaining, mysogynist!
/r/MensRights13/09/17 08:01 AM
2

You don't but my bullshit? I do buy the fact that you have strong feelings about this topic, but like to pretend that you don't. TROLL, TROLL, HE'S A TROLL!! You go to a place where people talk about something that they're passionate about, and tell them that it's not important and spew insults. How is that not trolling? Both of those are pretty sad.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 04:45 AM
2

LMAO!! We laugh because it hurts, and it's the only thing to make it stop hurting. - RH You're just precious. As are you, dear troll.
/r/MensRights11/09/17 03:17 AM
3

Look, princess, I'm not here to debate with you. Best joke I've heard all day. Plus I get enjoy your planetary-scale psychological projection: I'd tell him to go ahead and join the other whiny simpletons on the internet, crying about a completely non issue. Nothing says 'psychological health' like planning on how to berate your children if they someday disagree with you. What's your plan for when he tells you that he's gay? you're looking for that precious victim status that most feminists striv…
/r/MensRights11/09/17 01:28 AM
5

the issue with female genital mutilation is that you are basically cutting off somebody's clit The most common forms of FGM don't do that. rather than a bit of skin The prepuce is 'a bit of skin' the same way that eyelids or lips are 'bits of skin'. it removes most women's g-spot What form of FGM damages tissue several inches inside the vagina??? This is extremely dangerous, ... and it is all done underground because it's illegal. The second causes the first - if FGM were legal it would happen i…
/r/MensRights10/09/17 08:18 PM
3

We can officially say it has no seen health benifits and point to this and many many other studies This wasn't a study, the AAP policy statement still says that the benefits outweigh the risks, and all of the other studies and policy positions already existed, including the protest of dozens of medical societies when that AAP policy first came out. big step in the right direction I just don't see it - one guy distances himself from the 'medical' arguments, but doubles down on the 'culture and pa…
/r/MensRights10/09/17 02:20 AM
1

'mistakes' including believing that companies should be allowed to pay the disabled less than minimum wage Disagreeing with someone doesn't make their position a 'mistake'. In fact, that's a fairly standard position for many groups. mosques should all be legally mandated to fly the union flag He's urged them to, but as far as I can tell he's never suggested that it be "mandated".
/r/MensRights09/09/17 10:10 PM
9

This is still pretty terrible. First, it's just one person's opinion, not a change of position by the AAP's task force that aligns it with the rest of the medical community. In circumcision, what we have is a messy immeasurable choice that we leave to parents to process and decide for themselves rather than dictate to them. This may seem odd in a society in which circumcision is rarely sought, but makes perfect sense in the multicultural world in which many of us live. Second, the horrific parag…
/r/MensRights09/09/17 10:00 PM
4

Or in the words of Christoper Hitchens: “Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner, rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed on by some Apache transvestite.” As a bonus, this not only helps her h…
/r/MensRights07/09/17 12:03 AM
1

I believe that: That invalidates everything you say as an argument in this discussion I listed my personal beliefs and separately listed the assumptions built into the legal system in order to contrast them. That in no way invalidates anything. It was written under the assumption that said right doesn't get violated in the other direction and social reform has led to an expanded definition with that in mind. Yes, but until that social reform takes place the expanded definition doesn't isn't the …
/r/MensRights05/09/17 02:02 AM
6

So "The Running Man", but with knife-rape instead of homicide?
/r/MensRights31/08/17 01:52 AM
1

Prevalance of belief is not proof of fact. But your entire post is based on confusing those them! I believe that: outside of extremely rare situations, circumcision does not count as medicine consent to circumcision should consistent with other medical procedures (i.e. religion doesn't count) the discrepancy between these two lists is at least in part due to sexism and part due to history But the following are all observable facts: a solid majority of American doctors support, or at least aren't…
/r/MensRights29/08/17 06:26 AM
75

Good.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 11:12 PM
28

Perhaps, but that was in an analogy rather than targeting real people, and Twitter isn't exactly a platform that encourages nuance.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 11:11 PM
1

Mainstream economists or political scientists don't classify everything that isn't a far right totally free market socialism. Good, neither do I. There's a clear difference between a relatively free market, markets with various levels of regulation and taxation, a government-run one (which a socialist one would be by definition), and an anarchist or social-libertarian one. There's even a difference between holding one of those as an ideal and wanting it in reality. There is plenty of mainstream …
/r/MensRights27/08/17 06:37 PM
1

Don't have to hate them hoard half the worlds resources, they are more responsible for deaths due to poverty than anyone else ... mining in countries where people are starving and putting them in debt ... strip their countries of wealth Yeah, sure. this is what right libertarians want those Governments to do - to free their markets And libertarians (and most economists) will point to evidence that your scenario isn't what usually happens when markets are liberalized. Even the more interventionis…
/r/MensRights27/08/17 04:11 PM
1

Owned by the sort of families that have the world enslaved in debt ... Its super wealthy people promoting whats best for them. Oh, no! A business is owned by Jews foreigners rich people! (We can still hate them, right?) And yeah the propaganda outlets is pretty much it down to two doners. Sure, of all the money flowing into politics, a fairly small donation to a minor political cause is the only one with any influence. /s while 7.5 billion die of starvation a year Er ... I'll assume that's a typ…
/r/MensRights26/08/17 12:20 PM
3

You're full of shit if you think you can lock this thing down to a binary. Who said anything about 'locking things down'? Some things like height and agreeableness come in spectra with strong trends, while others are only mild tendencies, still others like blood type and sex come in distinct groups with occasional exceptions. Acknowledging that there's (ironically) a spectrum of ways that people can differ isn't locking anything down - it's insisting that we use the same kind of open inquiry for…
/r/MensRights26/08/17 02:11 AM
3

Just because feminists do X doesn't make X wrong. ... Factual statements and science should be argued on their own merits and not on the basis of "feminists say it, so it must be wrong". This stuff is wrong on its own - either most research contradicts it, minor exceptions are used to 'debunk' generally-true rules, or it's just 'impressions' from people who should know to ignore them because they're supposed to be scientists. Nobody blamed it on, or even mentioned 'feminists'. The title just spe…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 11:57 PM
1

The way it was last time round is evidence that its bad - history. And we are not talking about a few bad eggs, they bad eggs control the ideology. And I think that you're misinterpreting history and turning a relatively minor money-in-politics issue into a conspiracy theory. A single pair of donors control everything! Politicians that libertarians hate are constantly doing evil libertarian things! And for God's sake don't read any academic work on economics! They are the only reason you are shi…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 11:41 PM
6

If the dad has custody 50% of the time then he's already paying for his share of the child raising expenses. Right, and from a divorce lawyer's perspective clear, fair rules mean fewer billable hours.
/r/MensRights25/08/17 11:19 PM
1

The source is a well regarded investigative journalist Again, you're misrepresenting her work. And found this resurgence in free market capitalism is nefarious. She found a couple of people quietly making donations to causes that happen to help their business interests and possibly one astroturfed organization - important work, but not enough to smear the entire movement. If it were, then the fact that blue-collar people give lots of money to movements to create unions is 'nefarious' as well bec…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 12:31 PM
1

We have been through all your arguments. If by 'been through' you mean that you've ignored them, then made wild assertions that aren't even backed up by your occasional link, and then ranted about how much you don't like some political ideas, then yes, we've 'been through' them. Is the mere existence of bad donors to a cause evidence that the cause itself is bad?
/r/MensRights25/08/17 11:44 AM
1

Lunacy. Yep, that pretty much sums you up. Its been well documented by credible sources... Oh, look! A random source that has nothing to do with the thing you were talking about! Referring to times when it it was thought good to put whole families down mines And a libertarian would point out that life sucked like that for most of history, and freedom is what allowed us to progress to the point that we can feed our families without going to those extremes. Anyway, since you can't respond, I'll ke…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 12:45 AM
1

The known plot to bring back free market economics goes as far back as the 1950s. I'm pretty sure 'the plot' goes back to the 17th century, if not further. Its what has been recently called "the swamp" The phrase "drain the swamp" was a political phrase to get people to do exactly what you did - think of what you don't like about government and assume that was what was being referred to. Sort of like how "hope and change" doesn't have any concrete meaning, but sounds good. Anyway, since you can'…
/r/MensRights25/08/17 12:04 AM
1

They are all part of the network. Well I guess that proves it. /s And I cannot answer questions that I dont know the answer to. Exactly, you don't have any principles. Don't like them - find a few unpopular donors and use that to smear groups that didn't even take their money. Do like them and are asked about unpopular donors - dodge the question!
/r/MensRights24/08/17 12:39 AM
1

I am talking about ... ... whatever you want to talk about, regardless of what the other person said or asked. You are talking about an illustrious history of free market economics ... No, I asked you several questions, and you ignored all of them. So I'll ask again: Do you agree that The Economist, Reason, and Libertarian Party predate The Cato Institute and any (known) meddling by the Koch brothers? Imagine the Koch brothers need to undercut a business that happens to manufacture medical suppl…
/r/MensRights23/08/17 08:16 AM
11

"I need feminism because feels are just as valid as reals"
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:41 AM
1

That's not a response to anything I've said, so I guess you don't have one.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:34 AM
5

If you really can prove causality with this Technically it's 'evidence', not proof - this is empirical science, not math or alcohol. Studies of 40 and 101 children ... ... are more than enough for a p<0.05 if the effect is large (which is true in this case). Combine that with replication of the studies and the failure of tests of other factors to find any correlation, and this becomes fairly solid. If you really can prove causality with this, you should submit it to the scientific community. I'm…
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:26 AM
1

The source says the misis inst. was created after a split with the the koch bothers and cato. Yes. So you agree that the rest predate all of that? The people that created the neolibertarian movement want corporate welfare. Except for the fact that the libertarian movement predates the events you've described. "Feminists just want equality"- is that really the goal of the ideology, or are the real goals set by the men behind the curtain? Neither - what on Earth would lead you to that false dichot…
/r/MensRights23/08/17 12:13 AM
1

Well there is no true libertarianism. Well, if 'libertarian' covers advocating everything from the non-aggression principal to race wars to dictatorships you're a libertarian too - because the word covers absolutely every political idea imaginable. the billoinaires ... destroy the water supply, crops and air causing billions worth of damage ... They want corporate welfare too So you don't know what words mean at all? Few things annoy libertarians more than corporate welfare. If someone destroys …
/r/MensRights20/08/17 10:47 PM
2

Yes, they started with cato, and set up a network of other groups. Let's see when they got started: Ludwig von Mises Institute 1982 Libertarian Party 1971 Reason 1968 The Economist 1843 And the Cato Institute was founded in ... 1974. Only one of the four groups I mentioned at random could possibly have a post-Cato origin. They put 100mil into it, and thats just the Kochs. So, in total, that's <3% of what's spent yearly just lobbying in Washington, not to mention lobbying elsewhere and other type…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:57 PM
2

Do you not know how violent it was in the pinochete dictatorship? It was very violent, it was also not libertarian. Do you think property rights were asserted over other countries Colonialism is also not libertarian. He is not actually calliing for violence So he isn't calling for violence, you just think his ideas will indirectly lead to violence? But at the same time he's "pushing race war"? Or is he just warning of one? You have to explain yourself better.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:51 PM
2

These guys started the groups What groups? The Libertarian Party? Reason magazine or The Economist? The Ludwig von Mises Institute? Oh, no. You mean the Tea Party Movement - a group of Republicans that advocated some vaguely libertarian ideas, in roughly the same proportion that the gay rights movement did. pinochete libertarian dictatorship 'Libertarian dictatorship' is is an oxymoron. Your theory is that Pinoche was bad, and he instituted some polices suggested by one guy and his students, and…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:10 PM
2

He is a libertarian. Either he's a libertarian or he's pro-violence - you can't have both. And even if he was a libertarian, he's certainly not an example of a typical one, or an influence over typical ones. Im sorry to say it like this... Repetition isn't an argument.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:03 PM
2

[He's] pushing "race war "and so on. I don't know anything about this guy, but if he doesn't believe in equality under the law and and does believe in using violence as a method of first resort, he's not a libertarian at all. If that's the case, you'd be more successful (and libertarians (and the rest of us) would be less annoyed) if you targeted him specifically, rather than smearing the egalitarian peace-mongers by association. anything that limits a corporation is communism Libertarians want …
/r/MensRights20/08/17 06:43 PM
1

No, when their ideology failed to take off, then they sent up the groups and spread it that way. No, they donated to groups that advocated for a political philosophy with a long, respectable history that happen to align with what they want. Organized religion wasn't thought up by the flock. It was created and used as social control by the elite. The stories and beliefs were made by 'the flock', and the elites modified or took advantage of them. The priests weren't super-genius psychology PhDs ex…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 06:19 PM
2

The near entirety of the american electorate believes .. all encompassing ideology. Yes, the US has a generally-accepted political center (as well as fairly-obvious political pressures) that keep most successful politicians in a loose group on most political spectra. Even basic political theory (or even basic economics if it's modified for votes rather than money) will tell you that people outside of that zone won't win American winner-take-all elections. The Overton window is also a fairly well…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 05:42 PM
2

They book clearly traces how the radical right has been astroturfed to serve billionaires. Billionaires have given money to groups that advocate for things that they agree with - whether it's lower taxes or gay marriage. That shows how money can influence politics, but that's far more mundane than what you seem to be suggesting.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 04:51 PM
2

There were multiple absurdities in your post, not all of them noticed on the first read. You might try rereading, or just think before you post. It might make you more coherent. ... conspiracy theories ... conspiracy sites ... multibillionaires ... conspiracy theory ... feminist ... Usually, if everyone else seems crazy, it's not them, it's you.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:50 AM
2

She discovered that that entire radical right, right libertarian movement are useful idiots. Sorry, she didn't.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 08:36 AM
3

Multiple replies to the same post, merely adding more baseless assertions? You need to get some help, man - really.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 07:23 AM
3

research by a very credible journalist. Yes, and she doesn't deserve to have her work misrepresented like this. She discovered that, yes, people fund political campaigns that they agree with - and some of them aren't good people! Good (if somewhat biased and sensationalist) journalism, and worth letting people know about. I may disagree with some of her ideas and find others to be more speculative than fact-based, but on the whole she made a positive contribution to American politics. On the oth…
/r/MensRights20/08/17 07:16 AM
1

Go easy on him. You try making 50+ posts in a day to the same subreddit trying to push an oddball conspiracy theory while making perfect sense the whole time. :)
/r/MensRights20/08/17 06:21 AM
3

Ooooh! A conspiracy theory, where the people with ideas you don't like just happen to all brainwashed idiots? How exciting! What good news it must be that you're smart enough to see through it! How brave you must be spilling secrets with CIA coming after you! And how lucky we are to have YOU to correct us! /s Seriously dude, it's embarrassing just to read your posts.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 06:16 AM
1

800, 740 Don't worry, they'll let you retake it.
/r/MensRights20/08/17 05:08 AM
2

Ive been bringing it up when ever someone links to a fascist site. Or talks about us being stereotyped along with the alt right. If you were just pointing out that they aren't well-tolerated here, I would have no objection. But that's not what you're doing. And I made this post so that others would have some information to use to sideline or rehabilitate right libertarians. ... They are all part of the same right libertarian movement. All I get from this is: You're a jerk ('rehabilitate'? Really…
/r/MensRights19/08/17 10:32 PM
3

Progress would be the red pill movie, and getting out from under the stereotyping of women hating, traditionalist red pillers that want to take away womens rights. If you really want to keep the worst elements out, the best way to do that is to call it out when it happens, and not constantly bring it up unprompted. What you are doing is exactly what entryist feminists did to break up the atheist movement - constantly harp about how incredibly horrible parts of a smaller movement are until it can…
/r/MensRights19/08/17 08:12 PM
1

Why though, would you lie about something like that while going to a famous law university. Full of lawyer's kids. Learning to be lawyers. There have to be a couple nutty/impulsive/just plain bad people out of almost any group of 5,000, right? It is amusing that Drake has two different cases pending against them though. On the other hand they're trying to serve two masters - the feds say that Title 9 means persecuting men, while the courts (usually) say it means treating people equally. Go Cy! T…
/r/MensRights19/08/17 07:31 PM
1

Of course it is, even U of I isn't that dumb. Signed, an ISU grad
/r/MensRights19/08/17 05:50 PM
1

Even if your strange take on extreme libertarianism was true, what you've described still wouldn't be fascist. And, um, nice 'citation'. /s
/r/MensRights19/08/17 12:09 PM
3

Nonviolence, equality under the law, and leaving others alone - that's fascism all right. /s
/r/MensRights19/08/17 12:00 AM
1

Actually, no, there is not a consensus - there are some doctors who promote circumcision, and some who don't. I don't think you understand what a consensus is - it doesn't mean that everyone agrees, only that most people take a well-defined moderate position. The vast majority of American doctors neither oppose the circumcision of children, nor do they want to pressure parents into it - that's why you don't hear from them. Actually, there is. There is? Then there should be millions upon millions…
/r/MensRights15/08/17 04:28 AM
14

Rape rate: 0.5 per 1,000 Murder rate: 4.5 per 100,000 you are at least 10 times as likely to be murdered You've got that exactly backward.
/r/MensRights30/07/17 02:50 AM
4

You really know people who prefer the look of an uncircumcised penis? ... You can look this up online. It's not common to like it. To most people (worldwide) natural, unmodified penises look normal, because they literally are the norm - and hardly anyone anywhere thinks it's worth doing as an adult. To most people a (flaccid) penis without a foreskin looks as 'off' as someone missing a finger or with one eye that opens more than the other - not exactly ugly, but not something you'd wish on someo…
/r/MensRights28/07/17 12:12 AM
5

I don't know that I can declare the neck stretching thing as definitely morally wrong. My rule for neck-stretching is exactly the same as the one for circumcision or anal sex - consenting adults can do what they want, but you don't get to force it on non-consenting people. And no, there's no exception for "It's their culture" when it comes to cutting or penetrating children.
/r/MensRights27/07/17 12:44 AM
7

I'm sure there's a reason why people from most cultures prefer the look of a circumcized penis. There isn't, because they don't. Outside of Muslims, a minority of English speakers, and a few very small religions (Jewish, some tribal groups) nobody cuts their children (of either sex). I've never met anyone who thinks a foreskin is attractive. Since you wrote that in English, I'm going to guess that you don't leave the Midwest very much.
/r/MensRights27/07/17 12:37 AM
34

it looks wierd as fuck though You're the one who grew up with odd-looking people - the weird thing is in your head, and it makes normal male reproductive organs appear strange to you. and without it you don't have to worry about schmegma Which causes most men fewer issues than eye-boogers or ear wax, so...
/r/MensRights26/07/17 01:33 PM
60

How is it more pleasurable to have something covering the head of your penis The same way your eyelid covering your eye helps you see better - it protects it when it's not being used and moves out of the way when you need it to.
/r/MensRights26/07/17 12:54 PM
28

But here comes the downvote brigade for dissenting. ... But let me guess intactivists, now I'm a rape apologist for saying this, right? These people can fuck off. No, if you get downvoted it's for whining about how oppressed you are before anyone has had a chance to do anything to you. You're damseling when you haven't been attacked and aren't even a damsel. Yup, this method of putting images of blood on one's private parts is right out of the Feminist playbook that people have argued so adamant…
/r/MensRights26/07/17 12:43 PM
6

This is why you can go to jail... If they're clearly drunk. Unfortunately there's a fairly common state where humans are drunk enough that they don't form long-term memories, but can seem fairly competent and make decisions that seem quite rational - that's what fourthwallcrisis was talking about. Let's all agree to stay away from the gray area between those limits as much as possible. To the people we're arguing against that statement makes you either a victim-blamer (if that were directed at w…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 01:46 PM
12

If I got you to sign a contract while you were in that state would you expect it to be legally binding? Maybe not (especially a long term one), but if I stopped at a gyro stand in that state I don't think I should be able to get my money back. And the legal system agrees - you don't need a signature to buy from a vending machine, but you do to get a mortgage. So is sex an everyday kind of interaction, or are you suggesting that all individuals need legal teams, paperwork and signatures, witnesse…
/r/MensRights20/07/17 01:19 PM
3

While it's rare with household bleach (given low the concentration of sodium hypochlorite), it really does happen. So you're saying that stomach lining is all that stops us from dissolving ourselves in that amazing molecular acid we have a la alien? Not nearly as spectacular, but if it's enough to denature meat that you eat, why wouldn't it be enough to damage the surrounding tissue? Barf on your hand and leave it there for a while. See if you get a chem burn. Vomiting dilutes the concentration …
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:22 AM
1

So one comment out of over a thousand on some other web site on another topic entirely proves that there are people "here" who "want to ban these entire religions"? What?
/r/MensRights11/07/17 12:27 AM
4

Look again. There are plenty here that want to ban these entire religions. No idea what you're talking about. I'm sure some exist, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone explicitly post that it would be good to ban any entire religion, only certain practices. I certainly wouldn't count myself among them, 'we' was referring to people who think that everyone should have a choice about what religious symbols are carved into their own body - which is the argument most commonly used here as well as …
/r/MensRights10/07/17 01:26 PM
11

During the Spanish Inquisition, Judaism and Islam were banned. First, we aren't trying to ban an entire religion - just the practices (religious or not) that involve harm to non-consenting people. We also want to ban FGM, human sacrifice, and forced conversion by torture - why does this one practice get a special pass? Second, the Nazis were strongly opposed smoking - is that a reason to block smoking bans in public buildings?
/r/MensRights10/07/17 03:40 AM
5

What I really wonder though is how many women would like to have sex during their periods? Why wouldn't they? It's not like women's sex drive shuts down for three days every month. Plus orgasms can help with cramps.
/r/MensRights08/07/17 08:27 AM
12

Just to be clear up front, I'm not saying that sex during menstruation is super-dangerous, but only that these statements are wrong either way: I mean, forget the medical reasons why you shouldn't get someone elses BLOOD ... first off, it isn't really blood Menstrual fluid is about 50% blood, so if you're coming into contact with it, you're coming into contact with blood. if you're having unprotected sex with them already then there not much more risk Yes, there is. There's a reason that only so…
/r/MensRights08/07/17 08:15 AM
3

i think pornhub does this story every year based on all the evidence they got Like this? The ladies are really into lesbians, apparently.
/r/MensRights06/07/17 01:24 PM
1

Or just "clarify" the sign that says "women" to say "cis women"? :)
/r/MensRights05/07/17 11:54 PM
1

I know you're just trolling, but you could at least have the decency to stay on topic.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 01:48 PM
1

Don't forget torturer Sure, he tortured people. /s
/r/MensRights03/07/17 11:36 AM
3

She supports fruitcake ideologues like Milton Friedman. Yeah, how dare she cite a Nobel prize winning economist's opinion about economics. /s Unions would be outlawed. WTF? Even Friedman didn't want them outlawed, just that non-members shouldn't be forced pay dues.
/r/MensRights03/07/17 11:26 AM
1

There is no American consensus. You don't get to make that stipulation. The assumption is 1) not generally accepted, but promoted for profit... I'm sorry, but there is an consensus among American doctors, and that is that either choice by a child's parents is fine. The fact that both of us disagree with it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And your insistence that courts should ignore the AAP and other medical organizations in favor of your own personal opinion is just silly. Do you really thi…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 05:15 AM
32

They do cite a source, but to be fair it took to effort of find the actual report (page 17). Mostly the BBC article left out the smaller groups, many with with 'non-dependent children'.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 11:39 PM
1

But not to sex. Right. My whole point was that you can't create a good analogy with situations using either sexual activity, or with only two adults (and no children or other incompetent) involved. The result would still be a judge overriding an individual's parental autonomy for an invalid reason. Based on the fact that it's 1) not the judge's child, and 2) not a question of whether refraining from circumcising the child is an act of abusively withholding essential medical treatment. You don't …
/r/MensRights01/07/17 08:56 PM
1

If they had a contract to have sex, do you think there would not be hell to pay if a judge tried to enforce that after the divorce? The law is kind of a mishmash of arbitrary rules, even more so when it comes to sex, so a post-marriage sex contract would fare even worse than a prenuptial agreement. But it's legal to have a contract to preform sex acts in a pornographic movie, and if a porn star refuses to fulfill their contract you can sue them - and (in essence) they'd be forced to consent to y…
/r/MensRights01/07/17 07:16 AM
22

I don't have a problem with it This isn't about your personal feelings, this is enforcing people's basic right to control their own lives. If you don't get to control what happens to your own sex organs, or what religious symbols are displayed on your body, how can you consider yourself free? If you stab someone (and they aren't a consenting adult or in clear need of medical treatment) you go to prison. Why is this so complicated? And how do you justify carving out an exception to nearly every s…
/r/MensRights27/06/17 05:41 AM
1

I'm not sure. I thought [the IMF] was a private entity. It's about as private as the UN, as I've explained. Every person on the governing board is appointed by the government of a country to represent the interests of that country. The clintons work for the interests of banks and wall street, thats why they deregulated and pushed to normalize bad loans. Right, they did what was best (in the short run) for a group of cronies - both adding and removing regulations. In other words they didn't act i…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 09:32 PM
1

Again, to stay on topic Is the IMF government run? Again, to stay on topic What constitutes a good economy, and how do we evaluate what factors lead to a good economy? Yes, a central bank would ordinarily raise interest rates and recommend higher deposits to control a housing bubble. That would be nice, but the central bank has to keep politicians happy, and buying votes with other people's money never goes out of style. :) So state-sponsored enterprises that boost the housing market, the Federa…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 06:43 PM
1

Again, to stay on topic Is the IMF government run? Another factor is state capitalism and direct investment. More factors to add to the list, but how do we evaluate that list? Easy credit and property bubbles need deregulation to happen. So state-sponsored enterprises that boost the housing market, the Federal Reserve setting interest rates, and regulatory pressure to accept lower-quality loans are part of deregulation? I have no words.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 03:57 PM
1

Again, to stay on topic Is the IMF government run? One factor is that there is less poverty so more money is circulating in the economy. Good idea. But now we have five potential factors, how do we evaluate how much they each contributed? all you respond with is anger. When you tell other people what they think and refuse to engage other people's ideas, well, what do you expect? You are going to have to catch up on this yourself, despite my patiently sharing information with you Repeating your o…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 06:46 PM
1

Again, to stay on topic Is the IMF government run? Its not a secret that bric countries and northern european countries have done better than freer economies since 2008. But was that because they're more heavily regulated (and which regulations made the difference?), or was it that they didn't have cheap government credit inflating a housing bubble, or was is that their economies weren't tied as tightly to the US economy where the crisis started, or were they in sectors of the international econ…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:20 PM
1

Again, to stay on topic Is the IMF government run? A consensus you should know about if you are going to argue about this topic. Great! What is that consensus, why is it a consensus rather than just a majority opinion, where can I find a variety of sources of raw data that support that conclusion while excluding any other known possibilities, and are you willing to help me resolve conflicts that appear between that consensus and my existing understanding of the world? If it exists, I want to bel…
/r/MensRights18/06/17 05:11 AM
1

The IMF have been instrumental in imposing market fundamentalism in countries all over the world, since the 1980s. That's one interpretation. Mine would be more along the lines of them being pro-western corporations, lender-of-last-resort, or anti-economic-panic - or a mix of the three. They are a good source, and the findings corrolate with a consensus. One paper by one group, no matter who they are, does not demonstrate a consensus. You like to project. The accusations of lying and diversion c…
/r/MensRights17/06/17 01:02 PM
6

Rick Scott is a Republican, and in the article a former aid of his describes him as a 'family values conservative'. And it's worth pointing out that when it comes to keeping men in their prescribed gender roles conservatives and feminists are on the same page.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 12:46 AM
1

The imf is not government run. Oh, look, another attempt to divert the conversation quelle surprise. The IMF was made through the Bretton Woods conference and is run by representatives appointed by the governments of the member states (usually being an IMF representative is part of the duties of their Secretary of the Treasury or Minister of Finance). Outside of being a literal branch of a single government, how could it be more government-run?
/r/MensRights16/06/17 08:41 PM
1

socialism is the workers owning the means of the production means of production .. should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Workers aren't the whole community. I can't keep going with this using socialism and capitalism interchangably, its absurd and the result of you being propagandized. I have not. You're just embarrassing yourself when you lie like that. You are just out of the loop and reading ancap sources As far as I know I haven't read anything from that site, ever. I bar…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:03 PM
1

What i am doing its explaining the consensus to you. ... Its the consensus. ... Im not talking about beliefs, Im talking about the economic consensus. And you know it's the consensus because ... the literature you choose to read (e.g. a coffee table book aimed at a liberal-leaning lay audience) tells you what you want to hear. Gasp! What's the last economics paper you've actually read? No, wait, have you actually read an econ textbook - ever? Its you that has been citing weird sources. Ancap is …
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:56 AM
1

So there was a major recession while the policies you are advocating for were in effect? Yeah, there was stagflation nobody under understood at the end of the "golden era of capitalism". A mixed economy after the performance of market fundamentalism since the late 1970s up till 2008 So the 'golden era of capitalism' ended its three-decade success story when market fundamentalism took over and had its own three decade success story? I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. Economists…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:38 AM
1

Yeah sorry, I meant up until the 1970s So there was a major recession while the policies you are advocating for were in effect? Switzerland is a good example of ... but a lot of sweden's success Those are different countries. Chile (and singapore) are the most publicized examples of cooking the books Welfare state change in Switzerland during the last thirty years At some point I'd love to explore the relative merits of the free market systems vs the mixed/capitalism-with-welfare/'socialism' sys…
/r/MensRights15/06/17 02:48 PM
1

Kristoff is explicitly 'a bit of a fixer-upper'.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 03:28 PM
8

police to set up stings with rape accusers against men where they try and entrap them The police will call random men out of the phone book and try to jam them up? Not even close to the same thing.
/r/MensRights14/06/17 01:52 PM
1

a free market can never produce anything but a utopia and if free markets produce a negative outcome, its never because of free markets. I don't think any economy with humans in it is going to be a utopia, and you're the one that won't admit that the Fed might have contributed to the Depression. This is all projection. No it had crisis after crises, which called for more credit to be made available to fix. Weird that you don't have a source for that... Up until the 80s there were minor correctio…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:29 AM
1

Its the exception. And its growth rate is skewed by the amount of foreign investment. And accepted that and brought up two other examples. What was your response to that? Changing the subject, then keep whining about how unfair it was for me to bring up facts that I happen to know. You were saying the european union is socialist. Sigh. The sources you rely on are propaganda. Its americans fear being minipulated with McCarthyism. There is no socialist or communist threat. Europe, US, Canada, UK -…
/r/MensRights14/06/17 11:21 AM
1

Its seems likely if that corrosponds with your ideological belief. Projection. Fact is capitalism had a crisis every ten years before the federal reserve. It had moderate, predictable downturns, yes. What did it have after? The Great Depression. Not what I'd call an improvement. :)
/r/MensRights14/06/17 10:52 AM
1

Worst down turn in history was caused by all the banks joining up and failing. Yes. Under a government mandate that required them to join up and shielded them from market forces. No, the glass seagul act stopped them joining (regulation). No. The Federal Reserve Act required them to work together, and after that turned out to be a disaster Glass-Steagall tried to keep them separate in some ways. Bill Clinton ended GS, but the banks were still heavily regulated by (among many others) the Federal …
/r/MensRights14/06/17 12:13 AM
1

No you cherry picked Estonia. No, that just happens to be the country in eastern Europe that I know best. When you pointed out that it might be an outlier, I added two more at random. That's not cherry-picking. Now you are saying Estonia is socialist. It was socialist, it isn't anymore.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:57 PM
1

No, I explained that poster child free market economies (I gave Singapore as an example because I can find sources) have a secret Exactly. Your attempt to use eastern Europe as an example failed entirely, and like the coward you are you decided to drop that entirely (refusing to admit that you did so) and discuss an unrelated country halfway around the world, hoping that I wouldn't be able to rebut your argument. Sorry, but your conspiracy theory about this part of the world, and 'secret poverty…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:38 AM
1

Worst down turn in history was caused by all the banks joining up and failing. Yes. Under a government mandate that required them to join up and shielded them from market forces. Gov don't decide what interest rates are as far as I know. That (along with setting reserve requirements) is the primary tool that the Federal Reserve has to affect the economy. How could you even say this with a straight face? Of course credit was a factor, back in the 1800s until after the great depression free market…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:30 AM
1

We've been over this - repeating your favored explanation isn't an argument Its not a favoured explaination. ---repeats favored explanation--- We've been over this - repeating your favored explanation isn't an argument Without regulations the banks all joined together, which is what they did before the great depression. We've been over this. There was a century of fairly light regulation for most of the 19th century. After the Fed was created the next downturn was the worst in history. That's ex…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:57 AM
1

You brought up "poster child for free markets" And rather than dealing with any of the three examples I brought up, you dropped the subject entirely, using that phrase as an excuse. That's not just a disingenuous way to argue, it's embarrassingly transparent. Im not conceding that because Im relying on a credible economist for information. A credible economist is saying thats generally not the case. Then don't drop the subject. Explain how both sets of facts can be true, what I got wrong, or adm…
/r/MensRights13/06/17 01:43 AM
1

Free marketers cannot invisage free markets causing any problems at all. And others can't stop themselves from intervening at the slightest excuse. So how do I sort out who's right and in what situations? Clinton We've been over this - repeating your favored explanation isn't an argument for why it should be favored over other ones, especially ones that include all of yours along with other factors.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 10:02 PM
1

If I asked you, you would have told me ... ... that the US had moved away from a Keynesian-only system to one with a mix of Keynesian, neo-liberalism and corporatism. And that when things eventually went south ('cause eventually something will go wrong, no matter what system you have) the first two would blame each other for being idiots who are blind to facts, while the third would escape unscathed. And what do we have: you believe what you've read, the Mises-followers believe what they've read…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 09:33 PM
1

These poster children for free markets - like singapore And right on schedule you change topics. I'm going to have to assume that you're accepting that eastern Europe has done much better in the capitalist/mixed system than under socialism. Thank you for your concession. And if you're bringing up Singapore, this is how the argument usually goes: A: Singapore has markets that are more open than the surrounding states and is doing better. Heck, even the non-capitalist policies it has (like housing…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 08:56 PM
1

You treat historical fact with suspicion. And I'm pretty sure that if you asked a free-marketer in the 90s if current US economic policies were free market the best you'd get is 'they're more free market than usual, but not by much'. And if you asked them about the 2008 crash they'd place the blame squarely on easy credit (which they didn't support) - and that seems very plausible. That's a pretty thin thread to hang the blame on.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 08:27 PM
1

neo liberal policy dictates ... politicians are embassadors for corporations Free marketers did want it You can't be serious.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 08:16 PM
1

Estonia is an exception because it attracted more foreign investment than the rest of the east european countries combined. Well, yeah. They did things right, and had some luck as well. The Ukraine kept most of its state-owned businesses and printed money like mad, so not exactly a free market utopia right after the Soviet collapse. Not to mention the armed conflicts. Romania got off to a rocky transition as well, but the 21st century has been pretty good and last I heard it was the EU's fastest…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 08:07 PM
1

You are talking as if the shift from kenyesian to free market economics in the 1970s never happened. None of those topics were even mentioned in the post you replied to, you are deflecting because you know that you're wrong: I was clear on the difference between actual socialism and the merely euphemistically 'socialist' countries in northern Europe. End of story.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 07:44 PM
1

The politicians are embassadors for corporations instead. OK, so you guys ended up with an economic policy that neither the Keynesians nor the free-marketers wanted. I agree with that. To repeat my point from earlier - this experience supports the idea that Keynes is better than corporatism (not that many would argue against that), but since (as far as I can tell) there was never an actual free market it's not evidence for or against that system. So lets look at why you think that a free-market …
/r/MensRights12/06/17 07:33 PM
1

You said: As well as looking at growth in the 1900/early 20th centuary v's communism one of other the things he measured was growth of east european ex socialist countries before and after they joined in on neoliberal capitalism in the european single market. Since that conflicts with what I know about eastern Europe, I ask about the GDP of a country I'm somewhat familiar with: How does that square with the economy of (just as one example) Estonia - which went from roughly equivalent to Finland,…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 06:49 PM
1

In can't really do this because you keep using capitalism and socialism interchangably. I have not - in every instance I've used the standard Marxist definition of socialism, with one exception: That's why today even the 'socialist' countries in northern Europe are capitalist (with more regulation and taxation than a truly free market) If the quotations marks, the "even 'non-X are X" rhetorical device, and the almost-as-long-as-the-sentence clarification that followed aren't enough for you, you …
/r/MensRights12/06/17 06:42 PM
1

Because you are american ??? Well, I'm in the US right now... you been taught to believe social democracy is socialism I have not. Again, that's why I used capitalization and quotation marks to differentiate. You are saying the people partially own the means of production. No, I am not. Again, that's why I used capitalization and quotation marks to differentiate.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:29 PM
1

more growth How are you measuring growth? You've already said it's not GPD or any other measure I know of, so I can't make a reply (even to agree with you) until you answer that question.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:26 PM
1

A notable change was that the idea that gov. should serve the people was changed to gov. should serve corporations. That was an explicit government goal? Or is that just how people who didn't like the changes described it? Another is that excessive expansion of money supply should be avoided, unless there is a recession. That sounds pretty Keynesian to me. And earlier you agreed that rampant growth of credit was a factor in the 2008 recession. So ... ? Why do you have so much of a problem with t…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:24 PM
1

The book isn't based on ideology. LOL Its based on figures and outcomes that directly contradict free market dogma. 'Better managers make more' is 'free market dogma'? The results are in, mixed economies fare better. Again - you agree with people and arguments that support ideas you like and dismiss those that don't, and mistake that for knowledge.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:13 PM
1

Why did you even say "socialist"? To separate them from the ones that spend less on welfare. This whole thread is running on your mistaking social democracy for socialism. First, that isn't what most of this thread had been about - most of it is you dropping topics when it's clear you don't have an argument. Second, this part is based on your inability to read: Socialist countries: USSR, 20th century China 'socialist' countries: Sweden, Denmark Using quotes to say that something is 'sort of' or …
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:04 PM
1

Keynesianism was dropped in the 80s. What parts was dropped, and why were they more important than then ones that weren't followed earlier?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 04:57 PM
1

Greenspan was following milton friedmans monetrism, friedman didn't believe in the gold standard Again, you missed the point - what did Greenspan do that was clearly non-Keynesian and also clearly lead to the problems we're discussing? The gold standard was on for most of the time that the keynesian system was in place, Nixon got rid of it to pay for vietnam. What does that have to do with anything, other than to point out that almost nowhere has one theory of economics had a monopoly on the beh…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 04:51 PM
1

To be honest, I don't understand you. Same here. Either you're a really bored troll, or you have some reading issues. Just as a reminder: You: he measured the economies of some countries under communism and capitalism and they were the same Me: for a couple of countries that I know the history of, I'm pretty sure that's false You: I'm not talking about bread!!! Me: who's talking about bread? what did he measure? You: -never brings it up again- That's just childish. He just used facts to debunk s…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 04:30 PM
1

That's why today even the 'socialist' countries in northern Europe are capitalist (with more regulation and taxation than a truly free market) Jesus, there are no socialist countries in Europe. Its a single, capitalist market. You are using an american definition of socialism. in which social democracy / mixed economy is misrepresented as socialism because the powers that be want to frighten the masses into fearing social democracy. Yes, that's exactly the same thing I just said, just with more …
/r/MensRights12/06/17 04:15 PM
1

You were talking about domestic conditions again, I used bread as a euphanism for that. That's not a response to anything I've written. What was he measuring when 'he measured was growth of east european ex socialist countries before and after they joined in on neoliberal capitalism'? According to you not GDP or anything related, so ... kittens per household? in this book he debunks some of the dogma and myth around free market ideology and neoliberalism In this book a man heavily devoted to gov…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 03:43 AM
1

The banks were unregulated, the big crash happened in the early 1900s. The banks were fairly unregulated since 1837, with generally good results - the most notable exception being the 1907-1909 recession. Because of that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, followed by a long, unsustainable boom and the largest crash in history 16 years later. Regulations were put in place and it didn't happen again until the regulations were undone. Regulation kept increasing, to the point where growing you…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 03:29 AM
1

we did revert back to Keynesian policy after 2008 Sort of. It's not like the US was non-Keynesian since the middle of the Depression, it's just fluctuated between being a merely majority opinion and the solidly dominant opinion. (It's not like Greenspan got rid of the Fed or put us on a gold standard or ended all tariffs or ...) And it's done that for reasons similar to the reason that various 'alternative medical techniques' gain popularity. Every time there's a recession the government interve…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 03:07 AM
1

Exactly - you understand the source may be biased and are skeptical of them. But then why aren't you skeptical of the position of a life-long supporter of government intervention? Are you just assuming that he's unbiased?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 02:00 AM
1

You're including a second factor. That's fine, but that's different than insisting it was just the first one. And again, why do you believe it was this pair of factors over any of the others that people have suggested?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 01:58 AM
1

Me: -asks two questions about GDP, don't mention bread or rationing- You: Jesus. Im not talking about how communist countries operated domestically, or rationed bread. Im talking about growth of the economy. Me: ??? It's clear that you can't follow a conversation to save your life, so I'm going to keep saying 'citation needed' until you respond to what I actually wrote or give title and author.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 01:52 AM
1

Your source. If you look at the funding for them and all similar groups it goes back to the Koch Brothers. Exactly. You don't care what's true, you care what matches you politics. My entire point was that there's always a way to twist things to match your pet theory. It doesn't matter if it's the Keynesians you favor or the Hayek lovers you hate, every event 'proves' everyone's favored side correct. Unless you have a clearly better argument.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 12:56 AM
1

Its both a and b. First, you've now changed your story. Second, you still haven't explained why you believe what you believe.
/r/MensRights12/06/17 12:36 AM
1

No, because its in a paperback. Oh for fucks sake. Did we not have citations before 1995? Name the book and the author. Its not that controversial a claim anyhow. 1900s were miserable for the majority of people. Who said it wasn't? It still sucked much more in countries that had less economic freedom. In the US people started buying kerosene to light their homes, people in many other places still couldn't afford to light candles on a regular basis. As well as looking at growth in the 1900/early …
/r/MensRights12/06/17 12:34 AM
1

So an economic crisis happens, and people start demanding government intervention (which they will do whether or not the government caused the problem in the first place). A pro-intervention economist pats himself on the back for being 'right' because his views are now more popular, even though nobody changed their mind based on a sober evaluation of the evidence, only based on a knee-jerk 'do something' impulse. At the same time anti-interventionists pat themselves on the back for being 'right'…
/r/MensRights12/06/17 12:01 AM
1

The economist I read found it. But you haven't shared that source with the rest of us...
/r/MensRights11/06/17 11:38 PM
1

I don't know why you aren't getting this: Theory A: Clinton deregulated things. Theory B: Government-backed credit. In reply to the possibility of B you simply restate A as if it were a fact - that's even worse than being wrong because it's not even an argument.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 11:02 PM
1

Yeah Venezuela is a mess, and under attack. Under attack? More so than other countries? By who? Im not really sure what you trying to say, in relation to what I said. I can't find any reliable data relating the GDP of eastern European countries with their economic system/level of reform. Venezuela is just an obvious case of a socialist government screwing up royally.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 10:53 PM
6

Exactly. When she does something to help him she deserves compensation, when he helps her it's expected. :)
/r/MensRights11/06/17 10:21 PM
1

Im saying the sort of capitalism that was there prior to the great depression and there after the 70s/80s doesn't fair much better than communism in terms of growth. Because every ten years or so you get a large crash. The GD had no effect on long-term GDP growth - see page 5 - a solid 2% all the way. And for some reason it's hard to find historical GDP numbers for many communist countries - but Venezuela is at -5.7% growth right now (that's negative BTW).
/r/MensRights11/06/17 10:18 PM
1

I did mention Clintons deregulation Which has nothing to do with the theory I presented, one that suggests that excessive government intervention, not deregulation was at least a contributing factor.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 10:00 PM
7

Of course none of the sacrifices he's made are looked at, plus: Man does woman favor - Just because you bought her dinner doesn't mean that she owes you sex! Woman does man favor - You did his laundry, of course he owes you money! And that's pretty much modern psudo-feminism in a nutshell: "Here are the double standards that make up our pro-equality movement."
/r/MensRights11/06/17 09:56 PM
1

It wasn't that a normal downturn became a crash. Because ... ? Clinton deregulated the banks in the 80s and kicked off the sub prime market, the banks joined up and became too big to fail. That's one explanation. Why do you choose that one over the one involving the Community Reinvestment Act, government subsidized loans, and other state pressure to get people to buy housing on credit exacerbated by fraud? Oh, that's right - you assert as fact the theory that fits your narrative.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 09:21 PM
1

What I was saying that in terms of a countries economic growth, capitalism prior to the great depression and since the 1970 doesn't fair much better than east european countries under communism. citation needed And even if so, are you suggesting that capitalism at its worst is about the same as communism at its best? I was never talking about [that thing I brought up] That's what people say when their arguments don't make it through the first round of rebuttals.
/r/MensRights11/06/17 09:07 PM
1

I'm repeating what an economist who did the numbers said. Of course there are other economists that point to the Federal Reserve as a reason for why a normal downturn became a massive crash, and the massive government intervention throughout the 30s that kept it going for so long. The same is true of the 2008 crash - even the experts can't agree on it. And people always find the pundits that say thing that they want to hear to be 'objective, credible experts with data to back them up' and those …
/r/MensRights11/06/17 08:19 PM
1

And in the 1800s under this form of capitalism there was wide spread poverty too, "bread stealing" was treated as a serious crime. And there was a lot of it due to people not having bread. Except you learned exactly the wrong message from that fact. "Bread stealing" has been treated as a serious crime throughout recorded history (essentially since people started living in groups with unrelated people in them) and when times are tough people always do what they have to do. The only time people ha…
/r/MensRights11/06/17 08:09 PM
1

It's beyond me that anyone can argue in any contract that I have as much time as I want to execute our time unspecified agreement and take over 3 years, but you have to do your part within a few days of me being ready. I'm pretty sure this would not have been ruled this way if it wasn't to circumcise a boy. There aren't many laws against not bothering to enforce a contract, but as soon as a court gets involved things move faster, especially if one side doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. I wou…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 05:51 PM
1

Decreased risk of UTIs Did you cite the wrong article? There's nothing in the conclusion about UTIs. Decreased risk of STDs These studies are widely dismissed outside of the US: The primary in-country reason is the lack of relevance. If dozens of large-scale long-term studies in industrialized nations of men who were (or weren't) circumcised as infants show either no correlation with STD rates or only a minuscule one, why would you favor conflicting results of small, short-term studies done on m…
/r/MensRights03/06/17 05:36 PM
4

The non-consenting adult is forced to consent?! It was part of a parenting agreement with the father that she signed. When she changed her mind she was forced to abide by it, just like any other legally-binding contract. Until it's illegal to do it to a child that's how it has to be in a civilized society. The lesson is that you do your research first and then sign things, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights02/06/17 01:43 PM
3

The are statues of limitations, but there's also "Delayed Tolling" - in simple terms the clock doesn't start until the child reaches the age of 18. Just like the statute of limitations this varies by jurisdiction, for example some US states give child abuse victims an even longer period of time, or the tolling period only applies to certain statutes. On the other hand, you'd be fighting against a mountain of prejudice and the fact that what they doing was 'standard practice' - it's almost imposs…
/r/MensRights30/05/17 07:06 AM
16

Why would we call an anti-circumcision activist an SJW...? Oh right, this is a backhanded accusation of sexism. So pitifully sad.
/r/MensRights15/05/17 01:36 AM
1

base their views off of facts and reason Wait - weren't we talking about humans?
/r/MensRights09/05/17 11:41 PM
2

So when it's a question of human rights like voting and holding office, men get (got?) first priority because they are the most evolved, most human of all humans Who told you that nonsense? but when it comes to being held responsible for sexual crimes, they're... basically mountain lions? Rapists (not men) are like mountain lions in that they're not going to listen to reason (because they've already been told that what they're doing is wrong and simply don't care) but you can to a large degree c…
/r/MensRights07/05/17 07:20 AM
7

What do I make of this? A click-bait site trying to freak people out over a tiny number of jackasses or satire gone wrong. The only notable thing is the double standard on bodily autonomy they have - contrast this with women lying about birth control or circumcision.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 09:42 AM
4

If they're stealing our arguments, we're winning. :)
/r/MensRights21/04/17 06:25 AM
3

In Soviet Amerika, your gender-studies degree prepares the 21st century for YOU! Actually, that's not a joke ...
/r/MensRights21/04/17 06:15 AM
4

Right, but the bill is focused on adoption law reform, not father's rights - I'm assuming that the 14 day part is from whomever signed the papers, or for the other party from the time they're notified. The best part of this is that this helps improve an issues men face and it's treated as a normal part of updating older legislation.
/r/MensRights13/04/17 06:35 AM
1

their arm comes around to the front Well, yeah - you can't choke someone by squeezing the back of their neck (although you can injure them). The hand position would be different, though. My point was that front or behind wouldn't be a good way to determine consent. Or am I misinterpreting "ligature marks are or choking marks"?
/r/MensRights13/04/17 06:18 AM
1

choking marks that indicate it was from behind less ambiguous Are they?
/r/MensRights12/04/17 11:55 PM
1

Lying to somebody about needing a prostate exam because you want to charge them for more procedures, while I think still rape, is also a medical procedure. Sticking a finger in somebody's ass (penetrating them) because you lied to them? That's rape or sexual assault. So it's all three, but before: A medical operation isn't sexual assault. What? It's like you're not even trying to be consistent. Or like you think words are only for expressing feeling, not meaning. If I lie or misdiagnose and said…
/r/MensRights12/04/17 04:34 AM
1

If I lie and say you need breast reduction because your breasts are going to cause health issues, and I do it because I just want your money, is that sexual assault? No But just a little bit ago: "If I do a clearly unneeded prostate exam, even it it's merely to pad my bill, that counts as rape, which is a type of ... sexual assault." Yeah, because that's lying or deception to sexually penetrate somebody. You're so obsessed with being 'right' you can't even keep track of what you've already said.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 03:09 AM
1

So at first an unneeded prostate exam counts as rape, but when that turns out to be bad for your argument it doesn't. FGM is non-sexual, sexual reproduction is usually non-sexual, and there's this new thing called 'non-sexual rape'. I can't wait for the next round of mental gymnastics, but I can't believe that you'll come up with something more absurd than that last one.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 02:48 AM
1

To use your own argument: But they're not being sexually penetrated - it's just another pointless medical procedure. Nothing sexual about it.
/r/MensRights12/04/17 12:44 AM
1

A medical operation isn't sexual assault. True. Something that would otherwise count as assault can be considered medical treatment if it meets a complex set of criteria. But there are plenty of doctors and medical organizations that don't believe that routine circumcision meets those criteria - and if it isn't medicine, then it's assault - targeting a sexual organ. There is no reason to call it that unless you're molesting somebody with a knife, literally, for pleasure. If I do a clearly unneed…
/r/MensRights11/04/17 06:16 AM
1

I would guess that 'grand' is pretty common, but 'g' by itself is rather rare. On the other hand I'm an engineer, so not only is slang not my area of expertise, but I spend all day surrounded by the sane system the metric system.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 11:11 PM
1

Why are you trying to compare human sexuality to plants I didn't. I pointed out that, using your definition, plants don't reproduce sexually, and hoped that you could fill in the blanks.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 11:07 PM
1

Usually and yes. Are you suggesting that if I strap an unwilling guy down and merely manipulate his testicles that's sexual assault, but if I only do that as part of forcing a vasectomy on him that it wouldn't be? Again, you seem to be insisting on using 'sexual' as a synonym for 'erotic'. I'm using it to mean 'involving sex or sexuality' - in this case sex organs. But next you'll tell me that plants don't reproduce sexually because flowers don't get horny.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 06:40 AM
12

can someone explain to me why this sub is against it? Because some of us really believe in that whole 'my body, my choice' stuff. You should be able to decide for yourself what aspects of which religion you want to practice, and that needs to include the right to not display symbols of a religion if you don't want to do so. Or to put it another way, everything else a person does to a child that leaves a significant scar or missing body part is considered abuse and illegal - modifications of a fe…
/r/MensRights10/04/17 04:23 AM
1

Sexual assault is a crime of a perverted nature. So you're mad people aren't using your own, personal definition for a well-known phrase. Good luck with that. There's nothing perverted about fucked up medical operations, but there is something perverted about sucking on a babies donger. Exactly. This is all about whether you, personally, classify something as 'perverted' or 'fucked up'. Absolutely pointless.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 03:24 AM
2

You're telling people not to joke about a topic, and the they're the ones with too high opinion of themselves? ... LOL AND this is from someone who takes the name of our Lord and Savior in vain, while demanding respect for who? ... ROTFLOL
/r/MensRights09/04/17 11:10 PM
1

I don't see anything sexual about circumcision. Are you saying that the penis isn't a sexual organ, or that you don't understand the connection between the motivations people who circumcise and sexuality, or that assaults aren't sexual unless the motivation is arousal? Until you clarify this you're just pointlessly repeating yourself and not making an actual argument. Female genital mutilation is also not sexual assault. It's a medical procedure. It's just a really fucked up medical procedure. C…
/r/MensRights09/04/17 10:42 PM
1

If there is no intent, there is no reason to call it sexual assault because it isn't perverse, sexual, or anything like that. If I stab a girl in the breast, that's assault with a deadly weapon. Those appear to have a contradiction - in the first only intent matters, in the second only actions. If I stabbed a woman in the breast because it's over her heart, or because it was a convenient target, or because I've never been in a knife fight and am swinging wildly, I'd agree that it isn't sexual. B…
/r/MensRights08/04/17 08:56 PM
2

when we know that it's genetic that we want to protect women, why were/are women often treated badly in "primitive" cultures (like Yanomami)? Because if you beat women and kill men you are still treating women better than you are treating men. I was hoping for an enlightened explanation or speculation. The fact that men were beaten for various reasons is not an explanation, nor is the fact that life used to be (and can still be) nasty, brutish and short for everyone. You're missing the point - y…
/r/MensRights08/04/17 07:42 PM
1

Just like it was decided that forcing people to serve in the military didn't count as 'involuntary servitude' because the government granting the right to vote implied a duty to protect that government.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 06:57 PM
1

Here is the definition. ... primarily to derive pleasure from it. Hopefully it's enough to point out that that isn't the only definition, and even your cherry-picked, legalistic definition doesn't say anything about 'pleasure'. If I stab you in the genitals, it isn't sexual assault. If I insert a knife into your genitals in a sexual manner, that is to say, penetration with the knife as if it were a sex toy, THAT is rape. So it becomes non-sexual if they use the pointy end, or if they go faster, …
/r/MensRights08/04/17 06:22 PM
1

I wasn't going to quibble over whether it's 'rape' or 'not rape, but somewhat similar', but how can an assault on a sexual organ not be sexual assault? It's note like gratification is part of the definition. If I castrate a guy for sleeping with my wife, that's sexual assault - even if my only motivation is revenge. If you get shot in the dick, that isn't rape, now is it? I'm pretty sure that intentionally shooting someone in the dick counts as sexual assault. The same way that deliberately grab…
/r/MensRights08/04/17 06:26 AM
3

The 'k' comes from 'kilo', as in the metric system prefix. Most people in the US will understand just fine, but it might not be the first abbreviation they think of (especially given their attachment to miles and gallons). Using 'grand' as a noun is American slang - sort of like OK (acceptable), cool (good) and dough (money), but not as popular elsewhere. In this case phrases like 'a grand sum of money' got shortened and standardized.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 12:01 AM
1

You forgot the "/s".
/r/MensRights07/04/17 11:38 PM
3

I agree with Men's Rights Movement on all issues except one -- the plans to ban raping boys. [bad historical group] banned Catholicism in [year]. Does that make sense?
/r/MensRights07/04/17 05:44 AM
9

How do these same people — with the same set of narrow identity-politics driven ideas, neuroses and obsessions — get in charge of all protest movements? Other people have jobs.
/r/MensRights04/04/17 12:20 AM
4

This is one of the things I don't understand in this movement. ... There have been times in the past wherein I've thought about how perhaps I would have preferred to have been circumcised as a baby. So you want other people to force things on you, and simply hope that they'll choose correctly? There are plenty of people in the exact opposite situation, and they don't even have the option of choosing differently later - unlike you. Ignoring my opinion that the intended purpose of MGM is much diff…
/r/MensRights30/03/17 09:03 AM
1

Right, that was the point of making an analogy with ... the situation in the deleted post. -sigh-
/r/MensRights30/03/17 08:14 AM
3

What the hell's wrong with a per se and? Next you'll stop using the oxford comma and using 'pleaded', damn kids. /s
/r/MensRights30/03/17 05:58 AM
3

The child didn't go into the doctors to have his penis removed. So therefore it was by accident. So if I fire a gun at you in attempt to wound, and you end up dying, that's an 'accidental' death? In a certain technical sense I could see it, but it still seems weird - where's the line between accident and negligence?
/r/MensRights29/03/17 11:32 PM
4

Are some guys honestly traumatized by this? I can't help but think people are over inflating this issue. Some honestly are traumatized, but most are more ticked off or disappointed. But just because you didn't have the same reaction doesn't mean that they're "over inflating" it, they just have different feelings about it. There's a bit of randomness in what people shake off and what they find horrifying - one person's thrill ride is another person's nightmare. What change if they didn't get the …
/r/MensRights23/03/17 06:53 AM
7

If I repeatedly insisted something was wrong with you for something you cannot change that does not affect your life at all would you or would you not start to get a little pissed? What if you were surrounded by people who thought that nothing was wrong with you and you suffered no harm, even when you tell them that the right side is numb and can show them a literal scar where part of your body used to be? Nobody is saying that something is "wrong with you" with the judgmental connotation that p…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 02:32 AM
9

I am circumsized. I am fine. There is nothing wrong with me. You are clearly distressed by this topic, so there must be something wrong. Maybe if you tell yourself that it doesn't matter a few thousand more times you're actually believe it. I am blind. I am fine. There is nothing wrong with me. I have no idea how I feel differently compared to someone who is not blind and it is inconsequential to me. It has no meaning. There is no possible frame of reference for me to have that makes me feel any…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 12:42 AM
9

Adults can't choose to get circumcised?
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:50 PM
1

You suggested that "anyone with at least half a brain" has to believe that if there are lots of false rape reports there can't be issues with reporting real ones. I described conditions in the US where both can be true at the same time, and a possible set of conditions where that could also be true in India. Nothing in your response addresses that argument.
/r/MensRights16/02/17 09:36 AM
3

"Anyone with at least half a brain would understand if there are no issues with reporting rapes that didn't occur, there are no issues with reporting rapes that did." But that doesn't follow. Even in the US we've seen how upper/middle class white college girls have no problem having their absurd tales being taken seriously, while I'm sure that among hookers, the homeless, and people living in the projects rape is both more common and less reported. Why couldn't false rapes outnumber the real one…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 12:38 PM
3

Which is the cause and which is the effect? Or do they really think that wealthier, healthier, more sexually experienced men aren't more likely to get married in the first place?
/r/MensRights11/02/17 09:33 PM
3

Are you arguing that parents don't have that right? Yes. You have the freedom to practice it on your children. No, you don't. You can teach your child about your religion, but when they're an adult they have the right to walk away - and that includes not having other people's religious symbols carved into their body. Name another body part you can amputate as part of a religious ritual. You have the same right to circumcise your child as you do to baptize them. When you can reverse the physical …
/r/MensRights10/02/17 10:18 AM
5

Freedom of religion implies the freedom to practice it on other people.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 12:53 AM
2

Because for almost two decades team blue has been downplaying an allegation against someone on team blue, but when the same accusation is made against someone on team red they immediately have the opposite reaction.
/r/MensRights23/01/17 05:23 AM
8

A few more out of the (possibly infinite) list: 5) Cultural saturation - it's entirely possible to go your entire life in the Midwestern US and never come across the idea that there is an actual controversy, a couple of jokes on TV aren't enough. Heck, in Israel you're more likely to hear about anti-circ ideas, because the topic is actually discussed in serious contexts. 6) Good people, bad action - it seems to take an unusual amount of wisdom/understanding to realize that good, decent people ca…
/r/MensRights07/01/17 08:15 AM
2

The law should apply to everyone equally, and that includes disabled people. If they cannot get jobs they should be allowed to be unemployed and live off of YOUR taxes. So we can't do X because that would treat A and B differently, but we should totally do Y because A and B need to be treated differently. Or are you suggesting that disabled people should only get exactly the same unemployment that able-bodied people get and no other support? people who wish their precious laws of economics to tr…
/r/MensRights17/12/16 06:41 PM
26

On the other hand, the link at the bottom leads to the story "A truly feminist government would consider the plight of Indigenous men". I couldn't have imagined such an idea being presented in a mainstream publication a decade ago. On the third hand, this is "ANALYSIS" and the other is "OPINION". shrug
/r/MensRights17/12/16 05:36 PM
1

This guy is just a dick. Sure. But isn't it interesting that when he engages in semi-normal behavior for a woman we take it as more evidence that he's a dick?
/r/MensRights15/12/16 08:21 AM
1

Wow many downvotes. As long as the extra food cost was taken by the person who ordered, it should be fine. The assumption is that she was expecting him to pay for all three meals. Nobody is going to get upset about meals-to-go as freely-chosen gifts, just ones that people feel entitled to because of sexist gender roles.
/r/MensRights15/12/16 07:23 AM
7

That there are 90% males in the field. It's something anyone can do, so it's not a lack of females able to do it Well, anyone who's good at systematic thinking. its most likely that they aren't encouraged or told only males can do it. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Really, there's an infinite number of alternative explanations - and even the simple "nerds are gross" has better supporting evidence. It's also weird that women managed to completely overco…
/r/MensRights10/12/16 06:00 PM
8

The name 'Jackie' is made up, to protect the identity of the real person who told the story (which isn't that uncommon). However, she did make up (out of thin air) the person who "took her to the party" (Haven Monahan?).
/r/MensRights09/11/16 03:19 AM
1

if you're going to downvote me at least respond... The two reasons you gave with actual numbers are simple false. The rest of the medical ones are, at absolute best, fear-mongering over minor, easily treated issues. And finally religion doesn't give you the right to carve anything else into other people's bodies, even your own children's. ...state that you are anti-circumcision and don't want people to know that there are actually advantages to doing it. You're making unwarranted assumptions abo…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 09:13 AM
3

Well, we can only hope... Reads article Holy cow, look at the comments!
/r/MensRights16/10/16 09:46 PM
3

There likely aren't, but that's not what most Americans (including many American doctors) believe, even today. Mid 20th century in some places it really was seen as such a routine procedure that it was treated like cutting the umbilical cord - so obviously needed that it was done without any discussion at all. That's what those sites are mentioning. Heck the AAP still states that the "benefits outweigh the risks" (though they don't actually recommend it) after cherry-picking the few (poorly-done…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 01:33 PM
3

I don't know if I completely trust that source even though it's a .org site simply because of "By the 1950s some doctors were doing it routinely, without parental consent," especially because it's for religious, not medical, reasons. I'm not sure I understand. Most American men are circumcised for medical (or rather "medical") reasons.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 03:48 AM
1

Death is better than going through life not being able to perform as a man. I don't think many situations are literally worse than death. On the other hand, your life belongs to you and you should be allowed to make that determination for yourself, even though I very strongly urge you to find better ways to cope. But you have no business dragging the rest of us along, we have our own lives. I'm not part of the movement. Da movement won't give me back what I lost. No one is doing anything to stop…
/r/MensRights03/09/16 11:34 AM
1

It isn't a trial, it is more like an arbitration hearing. ... not setting out to punish, just to resolve a problem not found guilty Either it's arbitration, where there's just a resolution to the issue at hand, or there's guilt and punishment. You don't get to do both. Why would the complainant be expelled if the accused is not found guilty? She might need to leave campus for her own peace of mind but that does not require compulsion. Maybe I wasn't clear, but the logic of the first paragraph wa…
/r/MensRights03/09/16 11:17 AM
1

So in order to deal with your issues around something immoral that was done to you, you want to preform an act that's even more immoral and will be used for decades to make any movement to improve things look like a dangerous bunch of lunatics? While I do feel the same way, the right way to fight back is to raise awareness and protect your own children.
/r/MensRights02/09/16 12:29 PM
1

Because this is dispute resolution not the awarding of criminal penalties, the correct standard of evidence is the balance of probabilities. There is no guarrantee that a student who has to leave really was guilty. In that case if the university finds a claim only 49.9% likely, the claimant would have to leave. I don't know what planet you're living on, but there's no way in hell that universities in the West are going to start expelling women for claiming to have been raped. The end result is t…
/r/MensRights02/09/16 09:01 AM
1

"Proper business attire" is basically burkas for men - only the head and hands are exposed (because they have to work), but the top is double-layered, making them even warmer. When these women are cold indoors in their summer dresses, how do they think the comfortable men around them feel outdoors?
/r/MensRights01/09/16 05:33 AM
3

Its like feminism mixed with ... men are supposed to make sacrifices for women. What do you mean, mixed? That is feminism.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 05:20 AM
3

I didnt refer to the 20% point You, two posts ago - "the sample selected should be atleast 20% that of the population for it to be reliable" - this is what I'm disputing. Though the study would still be not reliable, in anyway. So either a study that has a 99% chance of being within 1% of the actual value is "not reliable", or all of math having to do with statistics (even obvious stuff like the law of large numbers) is wrong. Even the probability of things like flipping a coin shouldn't work th…
/r/MensRights27/08/16 11:54 AM
6

You aren't even reading you citation properly. The chart clearly says that a sample of 16,317 out of a million people will be within 1% of the actual value 99% of the time. That's <2%. The only place I see 20% is in "a response rate of 20% is considered as a good" - that means 20% of the people you send surveys to will fill them out, not that you need a sample of 20% of the population. I hope someone checked your math.
/r/MensRights27/08/16 08:37 AM
1

Once you've seen it, you can't un-see it.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 05:55 AM
1

My parents were not religious until they left USSR with me. Sure some join/rejoin, but when they do they bring secular ethics, their own traditions, and the faith as a whole still keeps changing. Thus many Jews are returning to Judaism. A single anecdote isn't evidence of a trend. But man, you do like those fallacies. Billions of people believe in Old Testament -- Jews, Christians, Muslims. As an argument that's not even wrong, because it's meaningless.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 04:41 AM
1

Given that lots of people believe something it must be true. You realize that without the specifics you are literally quoting a logical fallacy? The Law of circumcision was given to all descendants of Abraham -- Jews and Muslims. Sure, whatever. But half the Jews I know a atheists and the other half only keep Kosher on holidays and special occasions. Fighting against 1.7 billion devout believers is a losing battle. But we keep managing to win - gays, abortion, mixed marriages, slavery - state re…
/r/MensRights02/08/16 02:04 AM
5

I am not against my Jewish culture, and I appreciate Islam. And I'm in favor of reforming my culture to get rid of the last act of violence that it still condones, and think that religion is just organized superstition. But that's OK - we can still work side-by-side on the things we both believe in, and treat each other with respect when we end up on opposite sides of an issue. Welcome to the party.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 07:37 AM
1

Yeah, I made a bad joke after staying up too late. There was also some alcohol involved. Sorry about that.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 05:43 AM
2

I can tell you that the head/shaft of my penis is far more pleasurable/sensitive than my foreskin I'm a little confused by that statement. The glans is quite sensitive, yes, but usually responds best to heat and pressure [makes you want to keep it in]. Behind that (assuming that you've pulled the foreskin back towards your body) is the other mucosal tissue, that part tends to respond to motion, particularly rolling and sliding [keep moving, build orgasm]. Except for the part that's under/just be…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 05:33 AM
3

Ah, fresh-cut bait! If these men were all correct in questioning their partner's faithfulness we'd expect a figure closer to 50% - less if she'd had more than two partners. Only if they were having sex with each man an equal number of times. If we're going to wildly speculate we might as well guess that every woman was cheating, but having sex with their husbands/boyfriends 3-4 times for every illicit hookup. Or that the other guys usually use condoms. Or that many were cheating with women. Or..…
/r/MensRights30/07/16 12:53 AM
1

And gay marriage will never be legal because it's anti-Christian. /s
/r/MensRights15/07/16 12:30 PM
5

Why can't it be both? And more importantly, why is it OK to say that women are (on average) shorter than men but not that women are (on average) more likely to express emotions in order to change other people's behavior?
/r/MensRights24/05/16 09:39 AM
8

The draft is slavery and adding women doesn't change that. Are you sure about that? I can't think of a faster way to end it. Imagine when the next draft is suggested - and everyone from traditional-gender-roles conservatives (my daughter needs to be protected!) to the hard-core radfems (force women to die for the patriarchy?) fighting over who condemns it more. Femnists and MRAs marching together for the rights of everyone ... well, OK, that part is a stretch.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 03:19 AM
1

...even sexist Feminists are entitled to Freedom of Speech. Right, but this is clearly satirical.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 02:03 AM
2

If it wasn't satire, I'd agree.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 02:00 AM
1

You do realize that this is satire, right?
/r/MensRights25/04/16 02:00 AM
1

No, because it's not serious.
/r/MensRights25/04/16 01:59 AM
2

In most mammals the X chromosome is needed to survive at all, and the presence or absence of a Y chromosome determines sex (barring androgen insensitivity and other unusual cases) - extra copies of either can cause problems, but don't alter the person's sex. Birds usually use the ZW system - ZZ -> male, ZW -> female, and therefore the egg determines sex. Some insects use XO, where females have an entire extra chromosome that the males lack. Other animals use temperature, some change sex dependin…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 11:51 PM
4

Ya and an I the only one that's happy with my circumcision? No, plenty of people are. Some because that's just what they want, just like anything else they happen to prefer, others because they know they can't change it and convince themselves that they like it. I don't remember the pain at all so why does it matter A: Do you realize that your argument commits you to accepting the torture of newborns in general? If unremembered pain is irrelevant, it's irrelevant in all cases, not just this one.…
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:47 PM
7

How can you honestly make that comparison? "I don't remember the pain at all so why does it matter" "she doesn't remember anything about it at all....so therefore, you're fine with that right?" Because the essential logic of the arguments are identical. You just have a very different emotional responses to the two scenarios.
/r/MensRights03/04/16 04:33 PM
2

Puerto Rico is part of the US (just like the District of Columbia and US military bases) and people born in Puerto Rico are US citizens just like people born in states. So, yes, they're free to roam around the entire US - including the part of the US that they live in.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 08:27 AM
10

Your parents are going make decision for you till you can make decisions for yourself. In some cases, yes. But there are very strong limits on any of those decisions with long-lasting effects. The most relevant example being that they can't do anything even vaguely similar to circumcision to a girl. If he government mandated such nonsense, what would be the penalty? A retroactive penalty? It's unenforceable. That's nonsense. Ex post facto penalties are unconstitutional - you can only penalize pe…
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:59 PM
2

Side note: Gardisil only protects you from like, 4 of who knows how many strains of HPV You say that like it's a bad thing. There are 170+ strains of HPV, but only 15 (last I heard) are demonstrably carcinogenic and 16 & 18 by themselves cause 70% of cervical cancer and about half of all cancers known to be caused by HPV. So, yeah, Gardisil "only" protects you against the four strains that are most likely to lead to a painful and expensive death.
/r/MensRights17/03/15 02:22 AM
0

No, it is a belief, just like "the guy who decided green skittles should be a shitty apple flavor after 30+ years of being lime should be kicked in the groin by a mule." Someone who thinks he should be kicked has a belief, someone who thinks he should not be kicked has a belief. Someone who doesn't know what skittles are, or who doesn't care either way, are not expressing a belief. Some atheists might believe that gods are merely human creations, but many others are agnostic ('I don't know', or …
/r/MensRights13/03/15 06:31 AM
3

Are socially conservative MRAs in the U.S. less likely to be anti-circumcision? I don't know about MRAs, but (non-libertarian) conservatives in the US are in general somewhat less likely to oppose the circumcision of minors. If so, why? Is this some kind of religious thing? Not really - when it became a 'medical' issue in the 19 century as an anti-masturbation 'treatment' it divorced itself from religion and became an independent cultural practice. When you ask Americans about it they will eithe…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:37 AM
2

You don't seem to care about the freedom of the parents to represent their child on decisions like this. You seem to want to trample all over that freedom, and you also seem to want to trample all over religious freedoms as well, so I don't think it's fair for you to paint it as I'm against freedom and you're for it. I think a parental or religious "right" to use a knife on an unwilling human being is absurd on its face (as the courts would say). You might as well quote Leviticus and demand the …
/r/MensRights03/02/15 04:01 AM
2

Isn't the amount of trauma done a part of how compelling the procedure must be? Yes, but there's also the issue of self-determination. And in my mind if your case is so compelling that it overrides concerns about self-determination, then you've probably already met your burden required to override concerns about most psychological trauma. And if you can't meet the first the second one is moot. In addition, when you don't mean 'having a traumatic experience' but rather 'trauma that is consciously…
/r/MensRights02/02/15 11:41 AM
2

Remembering pain can cause life-long trauma and life-long trauma is harmful. It's better to avoid it if we can. Do you disagree with this? No, but I don't think it makes enough of a difference. If the argument for doing X is so compelling that we can force it on someone then we should do it regardless, and if the case isn't compelling enough we shouldn't do it at all. E.g. I can't imagine a vaccine that's just good enough to justify using on at-risk infants, but still isn't good enough to use on…
/r/MensRights01/02/15 12:01 PM
2

Except the "online no-nothings" are people like Hannah Wallen ... It's pretty clear that most of your issue here is that you came across a group of people who either disagreed with you and you didn't know how to handle it, or they revealed something about yourself to you that you don't like. Either way I can't help you. This is completely irrelevant. For the sake of argument, lets say circumcision is the only time this argument is used. Does that make it false? No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean th…
/r/MensRights01/02/15 07:37 AM
2

Most European countries live under religious rule and the Vatican City is in Europe for crying out loud. True, but Europe also has lower rates of church attendance and a larger fraction of their population identifies as non-believers. And that's my point - the fact that attitudes have changed doesn't negate the fact that they were 'inherited' from the colonizing powers. And it also supports my general thesis - medical culture bends to reflect societies' attitudes. In the US, when medicine was mo…
/r/MensRights01/02/15 12:00 AM
2

Is England not against circumcision now? By your logic, England would be against circumcision despite it's own influence. Europe is more secular than the US is, does that mean that the US didn't originally get Christianity from Europe? I'm against child (post-infant) male circumcision ... I'm okay with infant male circumcision. Why? Can you name anything else that would be OK to do to an infant but not a child? All subject to change, but at this point, the intactivists have really pushed me from…
/r/MensRights31/01/15 01:46 PM
2

20% is quite a bit IMO. Well, the only data I could find quickly only split countries into <20%, <40% ... >80% categories. many European countries that are against circumcision have English influence. You have that backwards - medical circumcision only became common in the US, Canada, Australia, etc because of English influence. Victorian-era doctors believed masturbation was a health risk, and damaging the genitals (of both sexes) was just one tool to prevent that. On the other hand France, Sca…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 09:46 AM
3

You know what's interesting is how anti-circumcision people will point to research organizations when it's convenient for them, but will call this a fallacy of authority like Hannah did in her link when it's inconvenient. That's what most human being tend to do. You have been on the internet before, right? These are all countries with close ethical ideas. ... South Korea and Japan does a lot of circumcisions. South Korea does, primarily because of American influence on their development. Japan i…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:24 AM
2

I'm trying to get down to what the real objection is... Well, there's the issue of balance. Nearly every medical organization on earth doesn't recommend it and almost every large-scale study done in industrialized nations has found no significant benefit, but somehow whenever it's discussed in the US that gets ignored in favor of three small, short-term, heavily-criticized studies in third-world African countries. This recommendation is a perfect example, spending 3 1/2 sentences talking about t…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 12:38 PM
3

They talk about set theory all the time around here: "No unions without affirmative consent!" "One-to-many mappings are misogynistic!" "Venn diagrams promote unrealistic standards of beauty!"
/r/MensRights29/01/15 02:51 AM
3

There are two basic types of legal systems - Common (mostly English-speaking countries and ex-English colonies) and Civil (everyone else). Judges in different systems have different roles and different relationships with precedent. Then there are the areas of the legal system that 'icanseeyou2' was referring to - criminal law (e.g. crimes), civil law (e.g. lawsuits), administrative (e.g. bureaucratic regulations), military justice (obvious), etc. And those have their own sub-categories. And to g…
/r/MensRights29/01/15 02:38 AM
8

Well, there's the general reasons - I think I should have been able to make my own choice, I'd like the sensitivity of having all of the moist, sensitive tissue I was born with, and I think it looks better. And in my own case the lopsided scar run very close to the glans on the right side, leaving me with little sensitivity there - if I was equally numb on the right there'd be no point to sex. For the same reason the skin was very tight during puberty on that side leaving me with a permanent 'ki…
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:58 AM
7

I want to hear from the man that is circumcised and wishes he wasn't. I doubt I'll find one here. So, what do you want to hear from me?
/r/MensRights16/01/15 02:10 AM
7

Tits? About 1 in 16 will become homicidal. See how the CDC reacts to that suggestion.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 02:24 AM
14

No, he's saying that you only have to prove affirmative defenses, NOT things like consent. An affirmative defense is essentially "I might (or might not) have committed a crime, but you can't hold me responsible". e.g - Prosecutors have to prove you molested a child, but proving it happened long enough ago to be past the statute of limitations is on the defense. The same goes for insanity, self-defense, and a few other limited defenses.
/r/MensRights31/10/14 01:18 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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