TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ZQMFGB Archive

View 0 posts and 527 comments by ZQMFGB 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

I hope whoever that was intended for enjoyed it.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:08 AM
1

I'm feeling pretty safe in ignoring the opinions of the developmentally disabled regarding my practice, but thanks for playing there champ. For some light reading, look into human rights tribunal legislation and resulting decisions from those bodies, Section 1 of the Charter, requirements for Canadian content for broadcasters, the breadth of what is considered 'hate speech' relative to American law, the absence of a 'passive vs active advocacy' test in Canadian jurisprudence, and Quebec's langua…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 02:06 AM
1

That's an awful lot of words for "oh shit I actually don't know what I'm talking about at all..." But hey, long as we're clear now that you've got no business having this discussion.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:27 AM
1

A fair question, I expect they would provide some context. If nothing else I would expect the relevant portions to be quoted in the reasons for judgment when they're issued. Having said that I've got a serious issue with any law that can result in criminal sanctions for statements which were neither threats, hate speech (which is a separate can of worms I'm not about to open) nor libelous according to the article and the excerpts of submissions included in it. He doesn't appear to have done anyt…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:20 AM
1

By all means, please enlighten us lowly peasants with your apparent wealth of legal knowledge.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:14 AM
1

I'm aware of that freedom in the Charter. It is a pale shadow of the first amendment freedoms enjoyed by Americans.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 04:39 PM
4

Canadian lawyer here, sorry but you're dead wrong. We've got nothing remotely resembling freedom of speech as an American would understand it.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:10 AM
6

There are huge portions carved out of it. I majored in US politics and practice law in Canada, the free speech protections between the two are not even remotely comparable. Basically, up here we've got freedom of speech unless you happen to say something someone doesn't like. Look up the legislation surrounding human rights tribunals, you can literally be forced to shell out tens of thousands for "hurt feelings", that's a direct quote.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:10 AM
37

As a lawyer I'm appalled this made it past charge approval, clearly these women weren't the only ones with an axe to grind.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 06:47 AM
13

This is precisely the problem. What's worse is that even if you're looking at diversifying just for the fun of it, he still did a piss poor job.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 06:45 AM
28

Canadian attorney here, I'm baffled at how this made it past charge approval and disgusted with these two "victims" attempting to have the state do their dirty work.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 06:44 AM
1

That's what happens when women take over education That's what happens when feminists take over education
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:17 AM
2

Proper trolling requires subtlety, you're going to need a lot more practice.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 06:42 AM
1

Lawyer here, I'm not aware of any such addition or amendment to the Charter, however I would not be surprised in the least if the courts had made such a ruling.
/r/MensRights22/10/15 06:41 AM
1

I'm actually a defense lawyer so I don't allow or deny anything, I just defend the claims that become litigated so I'm only speaking to what shows up in the pleadings for claims that make it to my desk. In terms of extra perks, a psych overlay can up the value of your claim significantly, or even form the backbone of it, but despite the judgments that come down sometimes I'm a firm believer that 95% at minimum are bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:42 AM
1

The state is already on the hook for plenty of kids that their parents can't support. There's already a mechanism to address the issue you're raising here.
/r/MensRights19/10/15 06:41 AM
1

Sadly enough, the DSM V (which is a complete rag written by the pharmaceutical lobby) will let you diagnose ptsd over just about anything now. I work in insurance defense and I see people claiming ptsd with a straight face over low velocity car accidents, not even fender benders, the fucking fenders are fine!
/r/MensRights17/10/15 05:22 AM
5

Please don't link to the actual site and give nutjobs like this pageviews.
/r/MensRights15/10/15 05:52 AM
1

If literally every man in your faculty who learned of this event determined that the cost-benefit analysis did not add up as far as they were concerned, you're probably due to consider whether the issue was with the event rather than them.
/r/MensRights10/10/15 06:25 AM
4

I've never understood why those studies are given any weight. The US Navy did a much better study than any of the African ones which showed no meaningful difference at all.
/r/MensRights13/09/15 09:03 PM
1

The NY Post is a rag. This is like being surprised at the Daily Fail using a misleading headline.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 12:58 AM
1

You either didn't read the post or didn't understand it. None of the examples you provided, and yes I'm familiar with all of them, could be spun or construed as examples of political correctness or hate speech in the sense they are used today. They are certainly examples of censorship or worse and indicative of the same larger issues we're discussing here, but they are not in any sense examples of the variety of censorship that was being addressed.
/r/MensRights10/06/15 06:34 AM
2

A fair point. Living in BC I don't think it's a very popular viewpoint at all outside certain echo chambers, but that won't stop the nutters over at the human rights tribunal from looking at some backdoor legislation if they feel the need.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:07 AM
2

I see where you're coming from with this. Not a direct issue but I can see where you'd view it as a symptom of the larger issue we're facing with feminism attempting to insinuate itself into all aspects of society.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 03:06 AM
6

BC lawyer here. This administrative tribunal is a kangaroo court and a bad joke on the legal profession. Worse, they keep appointing people from there to the bench, which has led to some of the worst decisions I've ever read (and I read dissents by Clarence Thomas in undergrad). Having said that, I'm not sure I see this as a men's rights issue, though I'm happy to consider viewpoints to the contrary. Seems more of a general socio-political issue to me.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 05:38 AM
10

Big Tobacco reps are FAR better at peddling falsehood. Her bullshit was easily debunked. The industries you're talking about would laugh heartily at that sort of amateur hour fraud.
/r/MensRights20/05/15 05:59 AM
2

Lawyer here, because trust me, the ones who're surplus are not the ones you want negotiating your settlement.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 08:12 AM
6

Not until they find a pharmaceutical use for the discarded tissue. If that happens they'll be all over the pediatric labiaplasty.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:25 AM
0

Feminists really are uneducated and complete morons. While I sincerely wish that were true it's not the case. They're often well educated in the sense they've attended college and are certainly cunning if not more intelligent than average. They've managed to significantly distort public discourse and frame everyone against their brand of sexism as a woman-hating hitler-clone. There's a great many insults that can be legitimately aimed at second and third wave feminism but stupidity isn't realist…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:22 AM
0

She's calling on people who actually do still have issues that need addressing to work on issues that don't. Given that expenditure of free time is a zero-sum system time spent working on her bullshit cause is time not spent working on issues that mean something like the draconian average sentences faced by black men (for example). I think it's not unfair to say that black men (again as a sample group) would be well within their rights to be asking rich white women to advocate alongside them (an…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:19 AM
2

She generally plays unlikeable characters. She does so well, but that only makes them more unlikeable.
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:16 AM
3

“I’m a lawyer, and I’m all for due process, and I’m all for justice, but justice cuts both ways — for the accused and the victim,” said Thomas Costello, a visiting professor in the School of Communication Studies. “I think he failed to address the underlying culture that leads up to sexual assault and sexual violence.” I'm also a lawyer and this fellow is an embarrassment to the profession. He fails to address why any underlying culture, assuming such a thing exists at all, would be relevant to …
/r/MensRights18/02/15 07:41 AM
2

Just sent a thoughtful message explaining I'll be looking to AMD for my newest machine. I'm not having anything to do with any company that supports that troll.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:49 AM
5

In a case like this, people might not offer assistance due to fear of being sued by one of the 5 girls (or all of them) in retaliation for damage you cause to them while rendering assistance to the victim. Such laws protect you from cases like that as an incentive to render aid. Lawyer here, not yours. Generally speaking good samaritan laws only cover injury or loss to the person you're attempting to assist. If you were interfering in a situation like this you'd more likely avail yourself of the…
/r/PussyPassDenied26/12/14 07:40 AM
0

That's implicit in having given consent, if you can't consent then you didn't consent. However, if you're drunk, even very drunk, but still capable of speaking and acting of your own volition you're responsible for everything you do, be that driving drunk, getting into a car with someone else you know is drunk or assaulting someone. I see no reason sexual activity should be treated differently from every other activity you could possibly engage in.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 05:07 PM
2

there is ample scientific proof that even being tipsy clouds judgement heavily. Not sure how that factors in. The standard is whether you consented, not whether you would have under other circumstances.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 02:45 AM
5

The delivery is crap but it's not incorrect to say that a man's height is more important than weight (outside morbid obesity) in terms of aesthetic appeal to women.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 06:18 AM
2

The last statement on the left is not necessarily correct. Some jurisdictions, mine included, allow for the defense of automatism. It's very difficult to prove but if you can show you were patently incapable of forming the intent to engage in any act, sex included, then the mens rea of the crime is not present. From an ethical standpoint the victim there was certainly still raped but given this was posted to lawcomic.net I doubt that's what they were going for. /not legal advice /not your lawyer
/r/MensRights24/10/14 02:51 PM
0

Whatever you say champ.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 03:05 PM
0

You're avoiding the statement I put to you.
/r/MensRights21/10/14 04:09 AM
1

There is more to an entire wing of the political spectrum than one president. Even setting aside congress and judicial appointments each president made, I could as easily direct your attention to Reagan and Bush Sr. vs. Clinton. Furthermore, are you implying that the conservative candidate in either of the last two elections would have been a better choice for the masses economically speaking or in terms of civil liberties? I've got plenty of issues with Obama but not so many that I think the al…
/r/MensRights21/10/14 02:23 AM
1

I'm not aware of any evidence that would support that assertion. Perhaps you've got some you could direct my attention to?
/r/MensRights20/10/14 07:51 AM
2

Now, if your Fraternity is a local only deal and not really affiliated with any national group, they might have more leverage. Frat guy here, you've actually got it backwards. The national ones are registered on campus meaning the administration has some pull, whereas the local ones are just informal clubs with no presence on campus beyond their members. Schools can't do a thing to change the admission guidelines for the local ones as they're already frequently in violation of guidelines already…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 03:34 AM
2

I don't see that as necessarily an either/or situation.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 06:37 AM
2

it is pointless to try and argue about who suffers more. This is true, but not for the reason you seem to think it is. Anyone whose suffering is limited to the loss of those who were actually involved is by definition not suffering to the same extent as the people whose last moments were spent missing several limbs and covered in their own viscera and excrement. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, there's no amount of therapy that will reverse death or reattached a limb that's been ripped …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 02:03 AM
8

The judge did the right thing in dismissing the psychiatrist's report. Their expertise is on about the same level as that of a chiropractor. As a lawyer I can tell you this isn't the case in Canadian law. In my capacity as a litigator I've read more than a few expert reports by psychiatrists, I've never seen one commissioned from a chiro. Whoever wrote that has got no business making legal commentary.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 06:57 AM
1

This sort of comment is unproductive and really doesn't do the movement any favors.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 06:55 AM
2

Self-defense would be moving to another area of the train. Lawyer here, that would satisfy the duty to retreat but it would not be self-defense. Self-defense is specifically the defense fielded to excuse what would otherwise be assault etc. /not legal advice /not your lawyer
/r/MensRights10/05/14 02:55 AM
1

She basically argues that women shouldn't be allowed positions in law enforcement, fire, emt or military. I'm not sure she goes as far as law enforcement or fire actually, the capacity of a rifle(wo)man at overpowering an assailant in close quarters or dragging a limp body is significantly less relevant to their overall utility than it would be to police or firefighters respectively. That said it's still bullshit argument even if one assumes the sort of WWII style engagement she seems to be spea…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:58 AM
2

I don't understand how someone could believe in equal treatment Quite correct, she clearly doesn't believe in anything of the sort.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 05:54 AM
8

This is a pretty good summary of the mindset. I recall back in an general ed English class being told by my wealthy tenured PHD holding professor that I, a 20 year old male with a negative net worth, a high school diploma and diagnosis of mental illness which at the time was not being appropriately treated (though in fairness she wasn't aware of the last one) held a position of greater power in society than her. I told her in front of the entire class that her position was preposterous, listed t…
/r/MensRights03/05/14 02:19 AM
2

I wish the presumption of innocence still applied in sexual assault cases. I really do.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 04:00 AM
1

I don't think anyone other than you read it that way, it was actually stating the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 02:15 AM
2

Nobody living outside a cave is unaware of breast cancer and it gets more funding than most other forms of cancer combined iirc; it is indeed blatant pandering. They could do something useful like increase awareness of things some people might be genuinely unaware of like head and neck cancer or lymphoma but why do that when you can score a few cheap publicity points? If they'd meant to be inclusive of men who suffer from breast cancer they wouldn't have chosen pink now would they?
/r/MensRights12/04/14 02:13 AM
4

Honestly they've stopped trying at this point. You'll be lucky to get a hand-wave and and a "meh, patriarchy..."
/r/MensRights09/04/14 05:57 PM
1

You're incorrectly conflating women's rights in the sense of bodily autonomy, political enfranchisement and social parity with "women's rights" in the sense of the presumption of custody in divorces, affirmative action and the "wage gap". Women's rights should continue to spread and flourish globally as they have across the first world, feminism should die a swift and ignominious death.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 05:50 AM
8

I get where you were going with this but that's not really a good comparison. She is in fact throwing around feminist terminology and making statements that (whether accurate or not) do pertain to feminism. Your corresponding example is just someone being a sexist douche with no political or social commentary involved. A better example would be someone accusing women of being gold diggers due to the inherent inequity of the family court system.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 12:36 AM
1

Not the most direct way of admitting you're wrong but it'll do.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 06:43 AM
4

I'm just saying that you can't create victims out of people who are glad they are the way they are. This is literally word for word the justification you'll get for why FGM is ok. It doesn't fly there. What makes you think it will for MGM?
/r/MensRights02/04/14 05:56 AM
19

It follows with their tactics on campuses, every seat they occupy is a seat a person genuinely interested in the material can't sit in.
/r/MensRights28/03/14 03:51 AM
1

That's exactly the case at most schools, hell they go further than that and ban hats, saggy pants and a whole host of other stuff on the basis that it's potentially a gang identifier. You're not really helping your argument here.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 07:33 AM
1

Pretty sure you just responded to the wrong comment with this one.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:47 PM
17

NFL broadcasts are public, feel free to go see what happens if you take those and try to use them for your own benefit. Go ahead, I'll wait.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 08:19 AM
13

You can indeed steal a benefit, typically (though not exclusively) a monetary one. Impersonating someone is indeed a matter of fraud, the process involved in securing the necessary information to do so is usually a matter of theft (taking identification and such). You seem to be under the impression theft is necessarily the taking of a person's physical items, when it can in fact be taking other things such as their liquid assets.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 06:53 AM
13

You've missed the point entirely. You took issue with a statement, I provided evidence you're demonstrably wrong. Aerik doesn't have anything to do with the point I made.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 06:39 AM
19

Stealing is also depriving someone of a benefit they would otherwise enjoy, see: stealing a person's identity.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 06:38 AM
17

If she'd simply copied it for her own private use you'd be quite correct, however she's using it for personal and monetary gain, meaning that yes, she is stealing, and no it's not a mere copying of a digital image on the internet.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 06:13 AM
14

The artist had her artwork stolen by a feminist hack who has made it her mission to correct the evil sexist bias in video games (despite having a demonstrable lack of knowledge on the subject). From what I've read, the critic has stolen every visual aid used in her youtube videos from various artists and let's players without crediting any of them. edit: punctuation
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:21 AM
7

The use of latin doesn't make that statement any less stupid. There are demonstrably humans undeserving of anything but a quick and ruthless end. Without treading into Godwin territory, here's a bit of light reading that should demonstrate exactly how far off base you are here.
/r/MensRights15/03/14 05:17 AM
2

And, I'm not sure it counts as discrimination to want to hire people for ethnic diversity -I mean, that's the opposite of discrimination, isn't it? Nope, precluding any group from being eligible for the position is discrimination, no matter the motivation behind it.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:28 AM
11

Like kragshot said, Duluth model in action.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 05:22 AM
10

There is literally no difference between officers like this than sick serial killers who kill people for fun. No, there's a very large and important difference. If a serial killer is recorded in the act there's at least a chance they'll see the inside of a prison cell. These guys? Not a chance.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 05:21 AM
1

Can we stop linking to the Daily Fail? If this story has legs it's got to be somewhere other than just that click-bait bullshit factory and if it's not there's a reason for that.
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:39 PM
1

This entire poster said just one thing to me: Citation needed.
/r/MensRights07/02/14 09:46 AM
3

No it shouldn't. You can opt-in now in most jurisdictions and that clearly hasn't been sufficient. Doing is at birth is fine, but given how many couples opt for anmiocentesis regardless of paternity concerns it's not the huge deal you're making it out to be to do it earlier either. In the end, though, couples who have children should do so with people they can trust. Not looking to offend but this statement is so naive I had to stop and chuckle. The entire point of this is that people often trus…
/r/MensRights30/01/14 07:01 PM
5

Have you considered that this would be offering the choice to not be defrauded to quite a few men out there? It's often less a case of whether you're curtailing choice and more a matter of which choice you'll be curtailing.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 08:20 AM
2

You should add Canada to that list.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 08:18 AM
9

Agreed on all counts, if we're really so incredibly invested in the 'best interests of the child' it might be helpful (read: extremely important) to know their risk of various genetic conditions and other congenital health issues like a history of heart disease or cancer.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 08:17 AM
2

Paternity testing isn't the same as determining a genetic match so even if the gal on NCIS did indeed turn his/her crank that wouldn't really be relevant.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 08:14 AM
0

Putting men in quotation marks. Assuming harassment, apparently as a result of the sex of the persons she was berating and assaulting. Assuming her behavior is in any way justifiable, and that said justification is somehow related to the sex of the people she attacked. Hand waving her ridiculous outburst and violence as appropriate as a result of "a person or persons being mean to her". Placing verbal abuse on the same level as physical. Is that enough specificity for you? Everything about your …
/r/MensRights31/12/13 04:26 AM
0

No. Just no. Your post smacks of sexism and thinly veiled prejudices.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 11:58 PM
-1

Unless the harassment involved physically striking her (or possibly the use of 'fighting words' in a jurisdiction where that's a defense) that reaction would be unwarranted and criminal regardless of any lead up to it.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:46 AM
3

Only if the person were fully aware of that risk and declined to take medication that would mitigate that risk. As someone who lives with mental illness I've got no patience for people who can't be arsed to take a pill or two when this is the potential consequence.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:43 AM
8

I agree with you overall but I didn't read rape into the comment you're responding to, just an increased risk of fraternization, which is frowned upon for different, but also important, reasons.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 12:25 AM
4

Them and everyone else that doesn't toe the party line (which will of course shift dramatically depending on the party in power). This whole obsession with "bullying" is just an excuse to further police social interactions the government has no business meddling in.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 03:43 AM
11

Canadian lawyer here, this is a highly disturbing trend in our case law, particularly on the part of administrative tribunals.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:03 AM
12

Standards are standards for good reason. It's the absolute bare minimum required to do the job. It's not a suggestion. Fire departments have no shortage of applicants and the requirements are high for good reason. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to be getting a pass when they failed to meet the absolute rock bottom allowable competency for the job when there are plenty of others more than willing to put in the work to reach that standard and who would jump at the chance to do so in her p…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:01 AM
4

You're not quite right on this. It is not a matter of them being incapable of consent but rather that the consent they provided is invalid as a result of mental incapacity (in this case as a result of being a minor). They can consent as loudly and enthusiastically as they like but that consent is preemptively vitiated by virtue of their age.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 04:35 AM
3

I'd never actually made that connection but fuck me you're right. I'd watch In the Name of the King again in a heartbeat before I subjected myself to the hot mess that was Sucker Punch again.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:34 AM
3

I think the term theory is being used here in the sense you'd use it to describe the 'theory' of gravity or evolution.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:31 AM
5

By that logic it shouldn't be an issue to routinely slap babies right? I mean if they're not going to remember it who cares?
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:36 AM
2

Every province has its own system (family law is a provincial thing as far as your concerns go) so I can only give insight on the workings of the system generally, but feel free to PM me just the same and I'll see if I can't point you in the right direction. /not legal advice /not your lawyer
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:16 PM
8

Canadian lawyer here, not yours. You want nothing to do with the Canadian family court system if you can at all help it.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 07:32 AM
11

UBC grad here, I'm not even a little surprised. The place was rife with feminist nonsense when I attended a few years ago. I can only speak for the law school but it was an utter embarrassment.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:09 AM
20

Actually they've attached a turbine to his head and feet, the spinning powers much of the east coast.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 01:43 AM
1

The common law is the collected precedents of previous cases which guide a judge (or other judicial figure) in making a decision. This is as opposed to statutory law, that is law that is produced by a legislative body. The common law is always changing is some small way (and sometimes large ways) as new situations arise, new exceptions are carved out of previous principles and occasionally previous lines of authority are found to be wrongly decided or unsuitable for modern society. The wikipedia…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:29 PM
5

No offense taken, anyone can certainly say they're anything on the internet. All I can point to is my post history and the fact I've never claimed another profession in the 2+ years I've been here. Glad to provide some food for thought! This is an area that bothers me a great deal and I don't do as much research as I should in keeping up on it due to the fact I get quite incensed when I do read up on it (as well as the fact it's outside my area of practice), so I'd like to thank you for providin…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:36 AM
7

I'll give you that on a philosophical level it can be said there is no 'right' answer when it comes to the law and I'll agree that the current state of family law does run counter to legal principles in most other areas, at times requiring fairly tortured logic to reach that end. The article doesn't make reference to any finding of fact by the court that the woman did not recall the events that led her to become pregnant, the Judge was merely reciting the evidence she provided to the court. I'm …
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:16 AM
8

Your analysis of the law is not incorrect so far as it went, but it is woefully incomplete. You're glossing over a very important legal principle in supporting this decision. That of consent (in a tort and contract sense, not a sexual one), and more specifically vitiated consent. When a person consents to enter into a relationship (personal, contractual or otherwise) or participate in an activity they are considered to have accepted the associated risks and benefits thereof. In the case of marri…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:40 AM
3

Lawyer here, you don't understand the law at all. That's all I'm saying on the matter.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:17 PM
8

Pretty sure the parody made casual reference to involuntary castration among other things, it was rather offensive regardless of any presence or absence of clothing.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 08:17 AM
1

You logic (and I use the term loosely) carried to its conclusion, would mean that weaponized smallpox, nuclear ICBM's and and white phosphorous should be readily available at any corner store, because hey, it's not on the seller to be concerned with what use it might be put to right? There are plenty of things in the world that simply have too high a potential for abuse or don't have any use at all outside infringing on the rights of others or causing misery. My argument is not that these partic…
/r/MensRights02/09/13 09:32 PM
1

I'm clever enough not to let an imbecile drag me down to his level.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:13 PM
1

The actual item for sale is irrelevant You really just said that huh? Wow, that's just... wow. Be sure to tighten down your helmet straps on your way to the short bus champ.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 07:08 PM
1

Ask for your money back. If you need to be told the difference between firearms and things that are not firearms they defrauded you.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 06:26 PM
1

Firstly perhaps you can tell me exactly how this is different to somebody selling guns? You're honestly asking the difference between selling firearms and pregnancy tests? This conversation is over, come back when you've got at least a 4th grade education.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 08:00 AM
1

Given the level of mental acuity you've displayed I'd certainly oppose you or anyone else with such a glaring intellectual deficiency being allow to purchase one of these (among many things). What is for sale here is the opportunity to commit fraud, no more and no less. There are a number of ways to put almost any item banned for sale to a use that isn't harmful, that doesn't mean the benefits outweigh the risks. Is your juvenile desire to toy with someone's emotions really worth the certainty t…
/r/MensRights02/09/13 12:57 AM
1

Holy shit. This was painful to read. Are the people who were burned alive in the Ford Pinto to blame because they chose to drive an unsafe vehicle? No, the asshole who sold something that never should have been made available to anyone, anywhere, ever, is to blame. Nobody has such a pressing and dire need to engage in what amounts to a juvenile stunt that access to a life-ruining item should be given to mentally unstable, vindictive or otherwise unsuitable persons. Are you honestly stupid and na…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 09:48 PM
1

Without a source other than the Daily Fail I'm not putting any stock in this.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:27 AM
3

A knife and a car have uses other than being an utter shit to someone for no reason and you damn well know it.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:26 AM
4

When you recall that his dad was a patent lawyer it casts this in a much more personal light.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 07:23 PM
1

Chauvinistic is the spelling you're looking for, and you're right, that term does get thrown around quite a bit.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:41 PM
1

I've heard denial of Obama's citizenship, the moon landing and the earth being round from multiple sources but I've still got my doubts. You'd do well to be a bit more skeptical.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:12 AM
3

While having sex with someone who's literally unconscious or incapacitated is certainly not ok I've got a tough time with holding someone else responsible for behavior you engage in after voluntarily consuming more alcohol than you probably should have. If I get wasted and then drive, take a shit on someone's lawn or break something I'm still responsible. I fail to see how deciding to have sex should suddenly abdicate any responsibility on my part that I'd still have if I were doing literally an…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:09 AM
12

Lawyer here. You're mostly right but the last sentence is way off the mark. Unless they practice family law they're not going to know much more than the average person about the ins and outs of the family court system. It's very much its own beast with its own rules, procedures and precedents. Also, no lawyer worth their degree would handle their own case, it's just asking for trouble on numerous levels, at best they'll know a colleague who's willing to take their file on and cut them a deal. Ot…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:29 AM
3

IIRC it resulted in hormonal imbalance (high estrogen due to it containing estrogen analogs) which led to subsequent complications including gynecomastia in extreme cases. There's also some evidence of it increasing the risk of estrogen-dependent tumors.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:40 AM
1

Actually it's because in large amounts soy has negative health implications for men, at least according to a few studies on the subject.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:06 AM
6

Or it means that because such restrictions did exist historically they're more likely to be discussed than hypothetical restrictions for men. Assuming such a search indicates common acceptance of such views is akin to imagining that searching for information on the Cambodian killing fields or the Soviet purges implies approval thereof.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:05 AM
1

I definitely see where you're coming from with that and I don't know that I disagree. I was just pointing out there is some legal precedent (though I'm blanking on the jurisdiction) for differing prices by gender being shot down.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 06:33 PM
1

Immoral is a value judgment, or at most an evaluation of the relative social sanction an act would attract in a given society or social setting. If you're speaking in the first sense then you're not more correct than heldonhammer as it's entirely a matter of opinion. If you're speaking in the second sense then he/she is quite clearly more correct than you assuming you live somewhere in the first world.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 05:53 AM
0

I seem to recall there being a court case about ladies night and people bitching about the guy who filed the suit ruining everything (implying he won), so there's at least some circumstances where private business or not you can't get away with it.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 05:50 AM
3

Depends on the context. In the political arena for example, appeal to emotion has to be a part of your argument due to the sheer number of potential voters who are simply unwilling or unable to rationally consider a well-reasoned argument that lacks such appeal.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:46 AM
3

As a lawyer, I agree this is the best advice you're going to get here OP. You need someone who specializes in this area of law in your jurisdiction if you want to get any meaningful answer on questions like this one.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 08:52 PM
5

As a Canadian I'm going to call this one as I see it. This is pretty much bald-faced pandering to growing immigrant groups where the practice is religiously/culturally entrenched.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 07:51 AM
11

The SPLC has pretty much 0 credibility, I wouldn't put much stock in anything they say.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 08:19 AM
2

Are you familiar with the study in question? It was literally a how-to on injecting bias into a study.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 12:44 AM
2

Because it's a big scary number that can be easily bandied about to silence critics of draconian policies. It fit the narrative so it was repeated until it became a factoid.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:35 PM
1

No lawyer would do that. Even statements solely asserting his innocence could potentially be taken out of context and twisted to the prosecution's benefit on cross-examination if the matter went to trial. It's best if the OP says nothing that could possibly identify himself, the complainant or even the general geographic area he lives in. /notlegaladvice /notyourlawyer
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:33 PM
3

I think you mean charged, not convicted. If you're convicted it means you were found guilty.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:29 PM
2

Maybe it shouldn't be, but in all frankness it is. For example, I'd wager my savings against a donut she's never going to be approached by anyone Ryan Goslingesque.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:53 PM
0

We should hate the ideas she's purporting and resist them in any civil manner possible, but it's a bit far to encourage hating people simply because they're misinformed.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:48 PM
3

You are wrong in thinking this.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 06:59 PM
41

Given it's currently career suicide to publicly identify oneself as an MRA in an academic setting its unsurprising that scholarly critiques aren't often published under the MRA banner.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:28 AM
3

Sadly yes, the freedom to contract between consenting adults is suddenly curtailed the second it impugns political correctness. Somehow you can contract to be subjected to horrific sexual abuse which is to be filmed and disseminated for the viewing pleasure of people you've never met without difficulty but can't even come close to contracting out of spousal support even if the marriage was broken up by one party participating in the aforementioned film.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 07:39 AM
18

It did matter until the institution of no-fault divorce, a relatively recent occurrence.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 07:37 AM
5

You're getting downvotes for this but statistical analysis of dating sites has actually shown that Black women are the least sought after demographic among those with a statistically significant presence. By contrast, Asian women were the most sought after.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 11:14 PM
2

In many posts this is the case and the disparate treatment is indeed a huge issue the movement needs to address, however there are posts (not many as they don't tend to make it off the new queue terribly often, but still some) which don't go beyond pointing out a woman doing something unpleasant. Those posts don't add much and should be addressed accordingly.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 09:14 AM
1

To shed some light on why this might be happening I do recall having seen a collection of studies that collectively stated women are more frequently violent but less likely to inflict serious injury. I also saw one that said more often that not altercations resulting in domestic violence were initiated by women. That said, I can't recall where I read them. More importantly, the issue is so politicized it's tough to tell what's accurate data and what's the result of confirmation bias on the part …
/r/MensRights20/12/12 08:46 PM
2

Wasn't a comment on the particular claim you were making honestly, just a heads up generally.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 08:37 AM
1

Generally when putting forward a statistical claim, it's preferred to cite peer-reviewed studies rather than textbooks.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 07:43 AM
13

By this logic it should also be a heavier penalty for assaulting an Asian person, after all they are statistically smaller right? Take the gender politics out of the equation and it becomes pretty clear how incredibly fucked up painting with such broad brush really is.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 07:40 AM
1

I think dinky_hawker is stating that Rocky meets the requirements for demonstrating 'heroism' as described in literature dating back to the Greek classics, which spawned a healthy portion of modern fictional tropes and cliches. He faces adversity (both physical and social), demonstrates perseverance in the face of said adversity, is portrayed as the protagonist of the work, engages in an endeavor which is likely beyond the majority of the audience and acquits himself admirably. You can certainly…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:52 AM
1

She then stiffens up as Rocky does stuff to her and gradually pulls her to the ground. Having watched the movie a few times and just watched the scene you linked now I did not see this on screen. The 5 second period you describe simply doesn't play out as you're saying. Adrian puts her arms around Rocky in a manner that is unambiguously conveying her willingness to proceed. I can see where your discomfort with the events preceding that point comes from easily enough but the actual result doesn't…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:41 AM
1

Family law is a state matter so the answer hinges entirely on where the OP lives.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:28 AM
2

Can't stress this enough, your lawyer should give you a frank assessment of your situation but should never be anything but the staunchest advocate for you, seeking the best possible outcome at every stage of a proceeding. If your lawyer isn't coming out swinging every round in (what you've described as) a knock-down drag-out divorce battle they should be replaced asap.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:27 AM
1

It sounds a lot better to advocate a "safe space" than an "echo chamber". It's political rebranding and it's been going on since Xerxes decided it sounded better to "repurpose surplus citizenry into territorial expansion facilitators" than to "conscript the filthy peasants to expand his empire."
/r/MensRights24/11/12 07:16 AM
7

Being a regular reader of QC I never understood Marigold to be particularly overweight any more so than Faye for example. Rather it always seemed her issue was at least as much to do with a lack of confidence as anything physical as evidence by Angus checking out her ass to Faye's consternation and later Faye's reaction to seeing Marigold in the aforementioned bikini (this is well prior to when the audience does). I think the message was meant to be "it's quite likely you're not quite as unattra…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 08:27 AM
0

OBJECTION! Every case in the Phoenix Wright games is a murder! Having played them would be of little assistance in defending a client falsely accused of rape!
/r/MensRights30/10/12 03:35 AM
2

I've never heard it used as anything else. What sort of context have you heard it used in?
/r/MensRights24/10/12 06:02 AM
17

Not only that, I hear the term manwhore being bandied about much more often than the term slut quite frankly.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 10:55 PM
1

Yeah, that's pretty bad.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 11:39 PM
1

There's a big difference between eating fast food and subsisting on it. The first is not a problem, the second arguably amounts to child abuse.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 06:47 AM
1

It hasn't been standard procedure in Canada for a long time, in fact it's fairly rare outside religious communities that mandate it.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 05:46 AM
1

I think the point you're missing in comparing marriage to any other contract is that it's the only one in existence whose terms change based on where you happen to be at the time. Every contract I've ever read or written (and that's a decent number) includes a choice of law section which states which jurisdictions' laws will govern the interpretation of the contract and any disputes arising from it. As is clear from the OP's situation there's a very good reason why we put that clause in.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:39 AM
1

I assume you mean under-reported relative to other crimes right? Every offense on the books has more occurrences than reports for as many reasons as can be imagined.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:52 AM
1

I wish that were true, it'd make most of the other games I play a lot more enjoyable by comparison. LoL has some douches no question but it's got nothing on any xbox live game out there, nor most shooters regardless of platform.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 12:53 AM
1

I don't see anything about your third quote that's remotely actionable in a legal setting. Even if she actually went on to talk a goodly amount of shit there's a great many factors that would go into determining if it's something the judiciary would give the time of day. /not legal advice /not your lawyer
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:50 AM
2

I'll take 'death from exposure' over 'consumed alive by roving herds of funnelweb spiders' on my death certificate any day!
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:54 AM
13

Wait, it's not?
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:51 AM
1

To be fair, they're call charter rights, not constitutional rights, but ontenth is correct that Canada is not without a similar set of rights. It should be noted however that section 1 of the Charter includes the implicit right of the government to infringe on those rights should it deem the infringement necessary. /notlegaladvice /notyourlawyer
/r/MensRights02/09/12 10:52 PM
3

What do you have against marshmallows?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 10:02 PM
5

Well put.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 01:32 AM
4

I think you'd have a tough time of it trying to do damage to a fish with a bicycle on the same scale that feminism deals damage to men.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 12:13 AM
3

You and me both.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:38 PM
1

When I say early gamers I'm talking DnD players in the 70'. That aside however, from within the group games were indeed the cooler part of the computer world but from outside, anyone with a keyboard was a huge nerd.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 07:02 PM
-2

Sure buddy, whatever it takes to make you feel better about your ignorance.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:59 PM
-4

But it was something done by almost exclusively men. Just because some men did something doesn't mean it's something that created in accordance with what all, or even most, men would want. Yep, women ragged on gamers from the very beginning, called them nerds, treated them like shit.... and now expect gamers to be nice in return? This says it all. You're clearly blinded by your own sexist agenda here. There is NO WAY that it was only women saying that. Fact is early gamers got more shit from oth…
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:31 PM
3

For the record, hate speech is not illegal in the US. See Snyder v. Phelps.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:17 PM
11

That data includes people playing farmville, temple run and sudoku provided its on a phone. It's not going to be a shock to anyone who plays regularly that the vast majority of CoD, WoW and League of Legends players are guys.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:15 PM
4

That's a bloody broad brush you've got there. At the inception of gaming it was not something most men did. It was considered 'nerdy bullshit'. Your argument that since a few men created it, the world must be a world belonging to, and constructed according to the ideals of, all men smacks of the same bullshit that lets feminists claim that all men run the world because most politicians are men.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:10 PM
18

Please elaborate on how playing Call of Duty is a basic human right.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:06 PM
10

Generally when a player talks shit they'll latch onto whatever they can ascertain about the target and run with it, kind of like a really bad stand-up comic. If you've got a thin skin then that might not be the best place for you regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or moral disposition of your mother.
/r/MensRights17/08/12 06:04 PM
1

Not in small amounts no, but bear in mind the unsanitary conditions and the fatality rates of even minor infections and you'll see why it was a favorable trait to have. Being dead is fairly detrimental to ones ability to reproduce.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 10:57 PM
3

There are indeed cases such as yours where it's not physiologically possible but that's the exception, not the rule. It's actually a genetic throwback to pre-history where sex could come at any time whether wanted or not and damage to the reproductive system didn't bode well for passing on ones genes. Unfortunately it's also what leads more despicable types to believe "she wanted it" and other nonsense.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 10:15 PM
9

I think the issue here is that while there may be many schools of thought that consider themselves feminist, there's a particularly vitriolic brand that's been the driving force behind much of the legislation and policy-making that's made the MRM necessary. Certainly there are plenty of people like yourself but as an active political force, the current iteration of feminism is highly objectionable to egalitarians like me.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:16 AM
-4

Anal and oral rape tends to result in physical injury, vaginal rape (unless done with a foreign object or to a small child) generally doesn't.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 09:08 AM
3

Something about the holes in the swiss cheese I'm assuming, or maybe the high moisture content of the mozarella?
/r/MensRights18/07/12 07:44 PM
4

That's because you're viewing it rationally. They've got enough confirmation bias that me saying I like mozarella cheese better than swiss is indicative of my support for rape.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 07:05 PM
57

You're really expecting someone who's advocating cold-blooded murder in a public forum to engage in even the smallest amount of logic or reason? The bloody unibomber was more coherent and discrete than that.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 08:14 AM
2

You'd think that's how it would work, but a number of jurisdictions have extended it well beyond reason. A woman in Nova Scotia, Canada was unconditionally acquitted of murder after shooting her husband, who allegedly had abused her and threatened her and their child, in the back of the head as he left the room.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 09:05 AM
6

They're not saying everyone who suffers from fibromyalgia is making it up, but rather not everyone who has or claims to have fibromyalgia is suffering from it rather than suffering from the strain over moving their own ponderous bulk from time to time or, alternatively, not suffering at all but wanting to benefit as if they did.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 06:39 AM
9

When a label can be accurately applied to such a range of viewpoints it has ceased to be a meaningful one.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:03 AM
2

You're moving the goalpost to try to avoid being wrong. You were wrong in the OP and however much you dissemble you're still wrong now.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 05:12 AM
1

First, the post I responded to wasn't making a point, it was feigning ignorance. Second, if that had been the point you were making it would run directly counter to your point in the OP. In either case you're being intellectually dishonest.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 01:51 AM
2

No, that's not your point. Your point was this: But the reason we ban rape is its effect on the victim That's not the reason at all. Being cheated on by a spouse has severe and egregious effects but you'll be hard pressed to find a jurisdiction where it's a criminal offense, much less one that's seen use in the past 50 years. So no, it's not the effect on the victim, it's the fact that rape is an affront to civilized society and individual rights.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 12:20 AM
5

That's a pretty blatant troll question. You know perfectly well that the reason your right not to be bumped into is not as vigorously protected as your right not to be beaten with a blunt object (for example) is because one is a far more egregious violation. Take your false inquiries elsewhere.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:07 PM
1

Came to say this. I don't know what legal text they got that from (almost certainly not one used to teach law) but it's utter bullshit.
/r/MensRights25/04/12 04:39 AM
1

More so considering he didn't bring two buddies and expect her to pick up their tab as well.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 06:11 AM
1

Well bloody hell, I'm disturbed to learn the one I described wasn't a one off aberration.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:59 AM
1

Fair enough, I just wanted to provide a rejoinder to that aspect of his argument should you need one.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:55 AM
2

I believe that was a Canadian case if we're thinking of the same one. Ontario iirc. If there's a similar precedent south of the border I'd like to know about it but that sounds exactly like the facts of a Toronto child-suport application I read about a year or two ago. We've got some real winners on the bench up here...
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:43 AM
1

Taking advantage of the 5th amendment is not lying, it's there for a reason. This assumes the OP lives in the States, though there's similar protections in place in most countries he's likely to inhabit.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 07:38 AM
3

Consider it from this perspective, if my parents and their parents and so on back into antiquity were beaten by their parents that's a legacy of sorts as well, it's important to consider which aspects of our ancestors actions and behavior are worth keeping and which are relics to be discarded. Not meaning to imply you ascribe to that view yourself so much as provide a counterpoint if this argument is raised when you discuss it.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:31 AM
1

Only when it fits their narrative.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 06:27 AM
4

Given you threw out a complete non-sequiter in each post so far I'm not sure you ever started arguing so much as posting knee-jerk responses to things you don't like.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 07:23 PM
10

This is a study by the US Navy that contradicts the African studies you linked
/r/MensRights01/04/12 07:20 PM
9

That's a phrase that could be used to justify pretty much any degree of barbarism and depravity, not really a good argument.
/r/MensRights01/04/12 07:17 PM
2

If there's not there should be, I've seen them started over less common ground than that.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 10:03 PM
3

Fair enough, never hurts to try, just in this case the douche bag in question has been at this for weeks for want of anything else that might occupy ones time productively. Good on you for responding reasonably though.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 10:15 AM
3

There are places where it's a cultural practice for both sexes to have this done around the onset of puberty but I can't speak to the relative numbers of those versus ones done in infancy. I suspect you're correct in that generalization though.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 10:06 AM
6

That's a known troll account, some folks just really need a life.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 10:01 AM
2

That's not the sort of statement that helps our cause.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 05:45 AM
3

The female practice is worse in some applications, not as bad in others. There's a lot of variation in how it's performed. I'm against it in all cases for both genders but to say that it's categorically worse for females isn't accurate. Removal of the clitoral hood alone is a smaller net loss of highly innervated tissue compared to the foreskin, whereas removing the hood, labia majora and minora (and possibly the clitoris itself in some cases) is indeed much worse. I think it's a pretty sound st…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 12:42 AM
1

Ah, sorry, responded to the wrong comment with that link. Should have linked you this. Link
/r/MensRights12/02/12 11:48 PM
2

Direct link to the study Always best to read the source material than others opinions on it.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 10:47 PM
6

Do a little reading on Dr. Kellogg and the reasoning behind the proliferation of circumcision in North America.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 06:16 AM
2

I don't think it's meant to be retaliatory, merely to present the obvious other side of the coin. We see ads like the left one on a daily basis, as often as not paid for on the public dime. The one on the right is every bit as valid, but not something you'd be likely to see as often. I think the point is to draw attention to the hypocrisy of that fact.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 10:41 AM
1

It's potentially safe for work, but by no means universally so. It's common courtesy to apply the tag somewhat liberally to ensure people are onside with their employer. If it's got a nsfw tag there's nothing stopping you from clicking it anyway, but it could help keep someone else out of trouble.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 10:38 AM
2

In the most extreme cases they take more than that, however in the least extreme cases it's actually not as bad as male circumcision in terms of the amount of heavily innervated tissue removed, depends entirely on the type being practiced. That said I disapprove of any unnecessary surgery on infants of either gender.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 10:31 AM
2

The studies that showed this were from South Africa and Kenya iirc and failed to control for so many variables the data is pretty much junk. A more recent study by the US Armed Forces, (active duty navy servicemen were the population used) showed there was actually an increase in rates of HIV infection among circumcised men relative to those who weren't. Like any study, the results need to be replicated , but it's a much better point of reference due to controlling for religion, cultural tendenc…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 10:27 AM
0

That's a pretty broad brush you've got there. Child support is driven by a combination of formulas which vary by jurisdiction and judicial discretion. Whether it's possible to do as znokin said is entirely a matter of the jurisdiction one occupies, the quality of ones representation and the disposition of the judge (and to a lesser extent the family court system as a whole) hearing the case .
/r/MensRights27/01/12 08:41 AM
3

Way to pay attention who you're responding to. That was the first post of yours I responded to, and based on your nutjob response it'll be the last. Try doing a little more research, psych 100 doesn't exactly qualify you to speak with authority here.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 08:00 AM
16

Yeah this pretty much flies in the face of well established psychological research, she's a nutbar alright, and a poorly informed one at that.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 07:48 AM
7

Neither does a MAC-10 look like a kalishnikov, that's a red herring but nice try. Fact is kids don't see guns in a realistic sense unless they're being exposed to extremely age inappropriate media. If they're watching cartoons or playing games intended for their age group they'll have no understanding of the distinction between actual firearms and laser cannons, both make the bad guy go ka-boom. Seems like you're just cherry picking data that supports your preconceptions here honestly.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 07:44 AM
6

As a law school graduate I'll say we're not all like that, but my class had its share of these whackjobs.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 03:52 AM
2

Yeah, I love how those trials, horribly flawed as they were, are held up as unassailable fact. When else do we (edit: as a society) look to studies from Africa and think "now there's something I should take at face value without any corroborating evidence whatsoever"? Hell, we don't even do that with European studies.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 05:36 AM
6

I'm convinced the first is literal shorthand for the second.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 08:32 AM
-1

Oh wow... derailing? You're a proper kool-aid drinker aren't you? edit: Just for the record though it addressed your argument directly. The fact you lack the reading comprehension to put that together is nobody's problem but yours.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 02:30 AM
0

Nice try, but the "you responded with a non sequiter" retort to cover up your lack of a counter-argument is a little played out on reddit.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 03:21 AM
3

Given there's plenty of legislation, advocated and in some cases drafted by avowed feminists, aimed at curtailing the rights of men as a gender (if you can't find this on your own you're not looking and demonstrably guilty of exactly what I just described) you're pretty deep in denial if you honestly think feminism isn't doing exactly what it's being accused of. Feel free to describe those feminists as "fringe" so you can continue to cling to your delusions, but as long as they're the ones affec…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:54 PM
12

I'm sure you honestly believe this but that doesn't make it remotely accurate. Putting words in the collective mouth of a group whose views, while logical and internally consistent, make you personally uncomfortable so that you can subsequently dismiss the group as a whole is a very juvenile way to address your personal shortcomings. Make sound arguments, post links, or otherwise make your case by all means, but don't fling insipid straw men about and expect to get any traction.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 08:06 AM
2

Glad I could help, didn't want to see a good observation get nitpicked over something small like that.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 09:13 PM
6

I think you mean everyone condemns those laws, condoning it would mean they're ok with it. Otherwise I agree with your point.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 10:01 AM
-1

Not at all, almost every woman I've dated reacted with revulsion to the topic of feminism.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:54 AM
4

No subtlety at all.... your trolling needs work.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 07:51 AM
8

Pretty typical of the nutjobbery up here in Canada lately, speaking ill of feminist canards ranks just below taking issue with the amount of money handed to natives based solely on race in terms of things you're just not allowed to publicly discuss, much less take issue with.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 07:53 AM
2

If you want actual equality then by definition you're an egalitarian humanist, not a feminist. It's that simple. If you want to further female privilege in the name of equality, you're a feminist. No offense meant here, I honestly believe you're the former and simply don't realize/haven't been exposed to the difference between the two. I've got a degree in poli sci and a law degree from a school known for its "feminist scholarship" and I can tell you unequivocally that feminism can and will furt…
/r/MensRights16/11/11 08:11 AM
2

Should isn't worth much in today's legal system sadly.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 02:53 AM
1

That was actually South Park, but otherwise I see what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 11:31 PM
1

That would involve doing some actual reporting... I mean this is CNN we're talking about. That's like asking Mike Tyson to teach a class in theoretical physics.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 11:30 PM
1

Calling herself a Doctor is an insult to small children playing with toy stethoscopes.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 11:27 PM
21

Given his head was properly cracked open he wasn't outside the range of responses a reasonable person would consider under the circumstances. Notwithstanding the fact he's clearly an unreasonable fuckoff, that's not an improper ruling of self-defense.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 10:39 PM
1

Indeed it would not have, which is why it wasn't an appropriate group to mention in the first place. She's blatantly stereotyping to advance her own petty cause.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 10:39 PM
1

People become refugees for a wide variety of reasons, more often natural disasters and famine than violence to my knowledge. To simply paint all refugees with such a broad brush seems to be an appeal to emotion where her point lacks substance.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 06:11 AM
-1

While disturbing I have to agree this isn't the right subreddit for this submission.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:06 AM
2

It's not just gender studies at all, this stuff insinuates itself all over the place. My law school was infested with politically driven feminazis. It seems anything outside the hard sciences is fair game for political engineering.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:03 AM
1

Indeed, what you missed is that it's the doctor that is to do no harm, his oath ends at his own conduct if you read it literally. I can see what you're getting at with the balance on beliefs being enough to qualify, though I'm not sure I agree. Not on this one at least.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 06:14 AM
1

They rarely break ranks with either of those, I think it'll be a matter of enough regular people growing up in a social environment where it's not expected or even considered normal that allows it to be seen for what it is and banned accordingly; I don't see a top down edict ala Brown v. Board of Education happening.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 05:24 AM
0

Your misunderstanding of the hippocratic oath aside, the fact remains that there are positions one can take that patently place one outside the realm of acceptable viewpoints possible for a member of a given group. Regardless of your beliefs on the matter, advocating elective cosmetic surgery for male infants is not logically compatible with the concept of equal rights for men.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 03:24 AM
2

I see what you're saying now. It is indeed disheartening to see the reactions some people have to reasonable suggestions, both then and now.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 02:14 AM
1

Indeed, but their not noticing didn't make it any less unequal. It's the same here, belief that's it's ok does not make it ok.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:49 AM
-1

Their belief on the matter is immaterial. I can believe that cold-blooded murder for entertainment is compatible with compatible with the hippocratic oath, that doesn't make it true.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:48 AM
0

That's like saying some civil rights activists are pro-segregation. The two don't really mix.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:01 AM
0

You're engaging in elective cosmetic surgery on behalf of your infant. That's frankly a disgusting point of view you have.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 05:00 AM
1

Frankly we're a good bit worse than the US if you factor in jobs with the government. I remember in law school having a crown prosecutor telling us about how they "encourage women and minorities and especially aboriginal persons to apply" and thinking to myself, isn't that the same as encouraging anyone who isn't one or more of those not to apply or at least not to expect much if they do?
/r/MensRights03/10/11 12:08 AM
3

Those men would be in breach of the peace among other things and they would be ejected for that. A restaurant has the right to refuse service provided it is not discriminatory in doing so (in this case it appears they may well have been in more than one way), but not to eject you summarily after you have been served. The gender element itself might or might not pass muster in Georgia but the added issue of race makes this a no-win for the restaurant based on the information provided.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:59 PM
4

They haven't consistently done anything of the sort, as many states as not have held it is discriminatory. Furthermore this goes well beyond a price differential, these men were forcibly ejected from the premises.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 08:02 PM
12

Actually it's discriminatory and therefore not acceptable. It may be discriminatory on race but it's definitely discriminatory on sex meaning if it comes to a legal challenge the bar should lose either way.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:32 PM
1

If they were good enough to be worth your time they'd be in a department other than women's studies.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:55 AM
1

True and certainly food for thought as well.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 06:20 AM
1

Very rational in the sense they profit immensely from selling the removed foreskins to cosmetic companies. Rational, but also deeply depraved.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 09:22 PM
3

I think some people missed the sarcasm there.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 08:44 AM
9

You've clearly put a lot more thought into this than they do.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 08:37 PM
1

This really isn't a hard concept, what exactly aren't you getting?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:05 AM
2

Occupying the space that would otherwise be taken by a new story fresh out of the new queue. Are you really this stupid or just refusing to admit you're wrong out of pure stubbornness?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:59 PM
2

Actually by definition it being there means it is occupying one of the positions that could otherwise be occupied by something of value. Learn to think before you respond.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:58 AM
3

I disagree, this is a caricature and not particularly relevant to the MR movement. If you honestly think this deserves a spot on the front page over studies, news articles or stories of personal experience with the justice system you've got a lot of growing up to do.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:06 PM
1

That too, but more importantly he's handing her a lesson in econ 101.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 07:04 PM
1

The response is supposed to be the amusing part.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:56 PM
1

I do think it's an issue but this is intended to be satirical and amusing, not informative or thought-provoking. It's only slightly less inappropriate than rage comics.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:24 PM
5

It is indeed, but this is satire, not commentary on that issue.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:23 PM
10

No matter how many times I see this it never gets any less true or amusing. That said this isn't really relevant content for r/Mensrights.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 07:41 AM
9

By your truly a half-assed logic they should be allowed to beat the kid too because hey, he should have known not to be born to parents with violent urges.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 07:22 AM
2

The second is anecdotal bullshit and a false cause fallacy. It's just as likely (probably more so) that the field began increasing in pay and prestige which prompted men to consider entering it where they otherwise wouldn't, or that both were the result of a third unknown cause.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 08:36 PM
6

In most of the world being circumcised at all would be pretty damn weird. Now what?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:42 AM
8

How about the greater demand for circumcision restoration processes etc. than for adult circumcision? Most people outside the States and the Arab peninsula are not circumcised and I don't see them clamoring for it later in life. This isn't rocket science, just think about the world as a whole for 10 seconds and ask why there isn't demand for it everywhere it's not forced on infants.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:41 AM
4

Most circumcisions are not done by a Mohel.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:40 AM
4

How's this for rational, every pediatric association in the developed world has stated there is no medical basis for routine circumcision whatsoever. Many go further, recommending against it under all circumstances outside phimosis. Have you got an MD with an emphasis in pediatrics we don't know about because otherwise you're out of your league trying to contest this.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:36 AM
8

It even goes so far as to outline exactly how severely one may beat their slave. Enlightened stuff.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:34 AM
4

Oh but we should allow Talmudic law to be practiced? Take your false equivalency and choke on it!
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:34 AM
4

They should be denied their custom because it's a barbaric relic from a bygone age that has no place in modern civilization. Your assertion that a parent has the right to foist cosmetic genital surgery on an infant incapable of consent is an assault on logic and common decency. I wish you were a troll because this sort of thought was ancient and inappropriate in the fucking Renaissance.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:33 AM
2

There is no workable definition of patriarchy where the system is perpetuated by women. If women hold the power in that context then how they use it is irrelevant to the fact there is no patriarchy.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 08:52 PM
7

Didn't get past "it is likely to have serious unintended consequences on child support". I read that as "You may no longer get to treat your ex-husband like your own personal atm". I don't see why, if you've got 50/50 custody you should be expecting to still be milking the poor bastard.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:25 AM
3

Actually the myth of rape culture was cultivated primarily through the disingenuous misuse and manipulation of statistics. The statistics refuting that ignorance are readily available in the sidebar and bear no repeating so really he's adding the only kind of evidence not already on full display.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 10:12 PM
2

I think you'd be hard pressed to find even anecdotal evidence supporting the 'rape culture' myth so he's not entirely remiss in applying it here.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:36 PM
1

God help me I've wanted to beat this woman with a tire iron (and I don't say that lightly) more times than I can count but I actually agree with her here. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day (or once a lifetime in this case).
/r/MensRights19/07/11 12:14 AM
5

Well said.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:56 AM
-1

That's much along the lines of being incapable of being omnivorous and vegan simultaneously, they're two diametrically opposed viewpoints. Anything not directly related to accepting or rejecting discrimination against both genders equally (which feminism patently rejects) can theoretically be found in an MRA.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:16 AM
0

I think it's supposed to be indicative of rejecting societal notions of attractiveness, nevermind that she's contradicting ingrained genetic coding not to look more like the opposite sex than ones own in the process.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 01:24 AM
0

Yeeesh, I have difficulty imagining being so hard up for company as to be willing to approach someone who clearly takes so little pride in their appearance. Is it just me or are these reactions seemingly coming from the women who (by their own design it appears) have the least to worry about in terms of being asked out for anything?
/r/MensRights15/07/11 11:16 PM
7

Very good point that a case like the one you've put forward would certainly be a hobby horse for certain groups while paternity fraud is quietly swept under the carpet on a daily basis.
/r/MensRights14/07/11 03:12 AM
2

I didn't mean to be dismissive of the poster, just of the author of the article, please don't take it personally .
/r/MensRights14/07/11 03:11 AM
3

Certainly a disturbing tale but I'm not sure of the relevance to this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:14 PM
26

This man is an imbecile and not worth our time. He's got nothing more than ad hominem attacks he puts forward with all the eloquence of a drunken baboon with tourettes.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 09:08 PM
1

Happy to oblige, I trust you can see your own way out of the thread.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 08:32 PM
1

Now you're being snarky and intentionally obstinate. If you've got nothing of substance to contribute to the thread then please hold your tongue. You're not making points to the contrary or delineating what you see as the logical failings of the argument; you're just making a pest of yourself.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 07:18 PM
5

People get sexually assaulted before 4am, after 4pm and at all other times of day, you're just being snarky for the fun of it.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 06:44 AM
3

A perfectly cromulent description.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 07:30 PM
1

The ENTIRE article is about the guy in the elevator and various reactions thereto. If there were no guy in the elevator there would be no issue with Dawkins reaction to the guy in the elevator. The entire matter hinges on the behavior of the guy in the elevator and whether Dawkins' dismissal of the concerns voiced about said fellow are valid or not. Dawkins is not off-base trivializing someone's concerns if said concerns are trivial. When you describe and incident as a "potential sexual assault"…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 04:40 AM
2

The issue being taken with Dawkins is that he's supposedly making light of a "potential sexual assault". The fact he's being taken to task is a de facto indictment of the man in question (edit: the one in the elevator to avoid confusion), this isn't rocket science. One does not "cluelessly" engage in sexual assault so the author clearly needs some english classes or a proofreader but the point is they're way off base.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:06 AM
3

Hint: the line "this was a potential sexual assault" near the end was a pretty huge clue.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 10:43 PM
1

Anyone who can honestly argue against the presumption of innocence should be summarily barred from ever discussing anything ever again. The sheer ignorance required to wholeheartedly ascribe to such a stance boggles the imagination.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 10:17 PM
3

Potential sexual assault.... By that logic: I got up today and engaged in potential vehicular manslaughter to arrive at work. Once there I engaged in potential embezzling and fraud in exchange for an hourly wage. I took my lunch break and went to the corner store where I potentially robbed the owner. On my way back to work I was asked for change by a homeless man and I potentially beat him senseless for his impudence. I didn't do any of these things today, BUT I COULD HAVE seems to be the point …
/r/MensRights06/07/11 10:02 PM
1

It's getting there but clearly there's some people who think there's still a little more social and political capital to be wrung from it. You won't see anyone exaggerating simple assault statistics to score points with interest groups these days to my knowledge.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:44 PM
2

It's odd you accuse the researchers of a raft of peer-reviewed studies as 'cherry-picking' then proceed to select an entirely unrelated crime statistic to support your point. Did you link the wrong article accidentally?
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:38 AM
1

Nice ad hominem. You're going to convince a lot of people of the value of your position with invective and what appears to be a complete avoidance of the issues raised.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:33 AM
3

You also won't see any advocacy for equality of genders in the professions most likely to die on the job; coal miner, crab fisherman and lumberjack all appear to be professions where gender inequality is overlooked.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:25 AM
5

Actually that was a pretty accurate summation of religious cognitive dissonance and could easily apply to any religious group. It's also a verbatim reproduction of exactly the arguments put forward by the feminist academic wings in both undergraduate institutions and the law school I attended. You might want to go inform them they don't understand feminism as well because the ignorance you're alleging here is an opinion held by a great many people laying claim to the title feminist.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 08:24 AM
2

Because those crimes have been leveraged for political gain for so long now they've lost a lot of their political clout.
/r/MensRights04/07/11 06:50 AM
1

This is exactly correct. I support marriage either being a right for everyone or no one, no middle ground.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:12 PM
1

Indeed, nobody seemed to consider the immorality of making false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 03:26 PM
6

Exactly right Personally I think statutory rape laws are applied far too often and strictly, but this is beyond the pale. This girl perpetrated a fraud on these men yet somehow she's the victim and they're potential sex offenders. Preposterous!
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:30 AM
2

By accountability I'm pretty sure he meant whether one is held responsible for their actions as opposed to it being viewed as an inevitable result of their mental infirmity. Nothing to do with real-world consequences and everything to do with the moral judgments people make about what they did in this context (assuming I'm reading it right).
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:47 AM
1

True enough, I meant legitimate public works projects and such but you make a very relevant point.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:25 AM
5

Indeed it might, I just meant in the sense of telling us flat out we won't be being informed of things because they said so, rather than preventing us from ever knowing said things existed in the first place as is happening now.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:20 AM
41

Although she may have lied about her age, or came across as someone who is older than she really is, you have to look at what these boys intent was as well with her I think their intent was to have sex with an 18 year old girl who has decidedly poor decision-making skills. How is that a crime and why am I not even a little shocked that it's a Texan making a bass-ackwards statement like that?
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:29 PM
3

There will be a market regardless of whether drugs are legal or illegal. The only question here is if you want that market to fund government projects and spending or fund illicit criminal enterprise.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:04 PM
10

Active censorship by the government is pretty low (though it was lower in the 90's I'd contend) but the amount of self-censorship in the media is unprecedented. Look at the number of huge stories the major networks and news outlets simply ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative they're pursuing.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:01 PM
7

The SCOTUS has massaged the interstate commerce clause to cover damned near anything any everything. I wrote my senior research paper in undergrad on the myriad ways they've trodden all over states rights whenever it's politically expedient.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:00 PM
0

It's apparent on the face of it, no belief necessary, think what you have to in order to maintain your composure over there, just know you look like a tool to the rest of us.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 01:30 AM
0

I understood exactly what you wrote, you're just dead wrong, no fewer than a half dozen posters have pointed out the failures of your logic but you just don't follow. I'm not going to waste my time further enumerating the giant holes in your position.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 01:24 AM
0

Few people bother to read anything that starts with invective and sounds like it was written by a fifth grader, but please continue putting your ignorance on display, it reminds the rest of us exactly what we're fighting against.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 01:04 AM
0

Between your inability to address my points and absolutely appalling grammar I'm going to recommend you go do some reading, educate yourself, then come back when you realize that no matter how much you equivocate it's not ok to brutalize infants to help assuage your personal insecurities.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 12:54 AM
1

Do you think anyone who advocated circumcising infant girls (even in the most mild form of it) would be debated civilly? I'm not sure why you think a difference in gender entitles you to a logical refutation of why it's not ok to cosmetically modify an infants genitals. There's just no debate to be had there.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 09:38 PM
1

That's entirely reasonable, my gf and I do this as well. I've never understood wanting a guy you ostensibly care about to spend more than he reasonably should be.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 08:15 PM
1

This isn't really relevant to Mens Rights. The closer this gets to the front page the tougher it is for people to find threads containing important stuff.
/r/MensRights22/06/11 05:22 AM
0

Your previous post was way out of line, mixing ad hominem "you guys look like a bunch of spoiled brats" and unsupported arguments as well as an appeal to false authority "I am a white man, so trust me on this" (yes I'm well aware of the full range of logical fallacies but I don't see the problem when I'm not the first one to engage in them). Have a look at any one of the links readily available here and then tell me you can honestly say the treatment of men in child support arrangements, custody…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 07:56 PM
1

Understandable, not meaning to call you out or anything, just wanting as many people on this sub to benefit from the knowledge and experience of as many others as possible. :)
/r/MensRights21/06/11 07:40 PM
1

You've certainly got some experience to share and we'd all likely benefit from it, but mixing it with invective in your second paragraph dilutes your message.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 09:11 AM
-1

You come off as privileged and decidedly out of touch with the political realities of today. You may or may not actually be so, but you certainly sound like it.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 09:07 AM
3

I think part of the issue with people be unable to accept difference is the idea that separate but equal is a logical anathema. Now don't get me wrong, race wise and such it certainly is. But the two genders are demonstrably different in a myriad of ways. Certainly we've got more similarities than differences, but that doesn't make the differences any less, well, different. I honestly think that those feminists who decry any statement describing or implying these differences is being intellectua…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 08:58 AM
2

It was during my undergrad, being exposed to women who spoke openly and plainly about their sexism as if it were something to be proud of. The day I was told by a very well to do tenured professor that I held a superior position in society to her (despite her exponentially higher net worth, position of authority and trust in the community, ownership of property and extensive education) due to my gender was the day I realized there were gender issues that needed addressing beyond the ones I'd had…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:27 AM
6

Considering half the student population is already rather disrupted by a system that blatantly ignores their needs I'd say it's worth a shot.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:23 AM
2

Not meaning to stick my nose between you but the last sentence there is a red herring. Not believing in something is hardly grounds for adjusting the law one way or the other. I can be a pacifist and still be forced to register with selective service, and anarchist and still forced to pay taxes or a segregationist and still be forced to attend integrated schools. I'm none of those things but my point remains that a person's feelings on the matter generally aren't taken into account when legislat…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 09:22 PM
3

All good advice, though sadly we're completely without recourse (short of disappearing to a country that won't localize your support judgment) if a woman duplicitously becomes pregnant. The courts have pretty much collectively told us "tough shit you should have been a monk" on that one.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:13 PM
2

Just to be clear, government is involved regardless so that's not a good argument. Not saying you're right or wrong, just that the center doesn't hold with your current logical chain.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:31 PM
2

In theory, it's a terrible idea though.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:29 PM
3

I should have been more clear I realize (edit: apologies for that), it's less being aware of the risks and more being aware of the extent of them, for example: the absolute lack of control a man has once an unintended pregnancy arises and the degree to which his well-being will be disregarded if child-support becomes an issue, the consequences of false rape and DV claims and the bias against fathers being granted custody during a divorce.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 06:22 PM
10

Probably the same thing any guy does, they're just more aware of the risks involved in pursuing it and act accordingly. Simple enough.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 07:21 AM
2

I have to wonder if the DA really is that ignorant or if they're being intentionally misleading and duplicitous. I'm honestly not sure which is worse.
/r/MensRights18/06/11 12:32 AM
1

They should be, comments like that can be worth serious cash.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 09:36 PM
8

It's been proven time and again that eye witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence you can bring against an accused. There's studies for days but clearly you don't need to do your homework to be a DA in that jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 09:34 PM
1

Excellent point.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:32 PM
6

Look up Doctor Kellogg, he was a big advocate of it among other things (such as Kelloggs corn flakes as part of a diet meant to suppress libido and prevent masturbation, also burning out the clitorises of girls who masturbated using acid iirc). Dude was pretty much a neurotic whack job with a disturbed agenda. Interesting footnote, graham crackers were invented for the same reason.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 07:56 AM
3

Gotta love the one comment "it has been done for millions of years". I don't think that word means what you think it means, because if it does that's an incredibly skewed view of human history and evolution.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:59 AM
9

It was a hold-over from victorian morals and was primarily meant to prevent children from masturbating. The other reasons have been invented ex post facto. Also, hospitals sell them at an obscene profit for use in beauty products so they've got no reason to recommend against it.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 06:58 AM
3

Taken advantage of? You mean in the exact same way men are currently being taken advantage of? Why is it ok to take advantage of one sex, but not the other and who is to say which is preferable?
/r/MensRights15/06/11 11:18 PM
2

That's another one... there's nothing positive about it.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 10:44 PM
1

Fair enough, insufficiently-discriminately work for you?
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:29 PM
5

I disagree that you'd necessarily have gotten a pass as a man. These days a guy can very easily be slapped with the label of "man-whore" and see his social capital plummet as a result. You might not see that amongst frat boys and high school guys, but among educated and professional crowds it's hardly a point of pride to indiscriminately sleep around these days.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 09:18 PM
2

We need to go weaker.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 05:17 AM
9

You're whining about him whining, so if that makes him a pussy what does that make you?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:17 PM
1

In areas like employment law and specialized industries you're certainly correct, however cases like 'human rights' where the tribunal purports to exert jurisdiction over virtually anything and everything (especially those things that would never see the inside of a court for the most obvious of reasons) are a perversion of the judicial process. This case doesn't go that far, but it's toeing the line and going beyond what most people would agree are the bounds of reason and propriety. Also, whil…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 06:37 AM
1

My reading was that the comments came after she'd failed the first time but before her second failure when they'd adjusted the requirements slightly. Either way, upvoted for support for singular standards, that's the main issue at hand.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 10:17 PM
1

I think the trouble with this debate is disregard for the common cause fallacy. Dressing like a slut doesn't get you raped we've been told, however dressing like a slut does seem to correlate with getting utterly shit-faced in my experience, which in turn does increase the likelihood of rape.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 10:14 PM
2

You had a point up until you used Megan Fox as your example.... Not saying I agreed with it but you had a point...
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:56 PM
1

You're right as far as the media is concerned, though the media doesn't have the power to remove sitting judges and Canadian courts seem relatively immune to public sentiment when compared to the States. The issue for me is the sweeping scope of powers tribunals wield (both in Canada and across the pond) when they're not required or even expected to adhere to the rules of evidence or follow most other judicial procedures. Denial of judicial review is the default position and overcoming that obst…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:51 PM
3

Indeed, I'm not sure how much humiliation would be worth 30k pounds but I'm pretty damn sure it's more than what she dealt with. Bloody preposterous.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 08:34 PM
1

That would make sense as to why bottles cost more than draft per fl oz., good point.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 08:25 PM
3

I know I know.... reality be damned, someone's feelings were hurt!
/r/MensRights13/06/11 08:16 PM
1

I'm aware of this body and others like it, but as has been said better than I can rephrase it: "who shall police the police?" I've got little more confidence in judges to properly discipline other judges than I do police departments investigating themselves or legislative bodies looking into corruption in their own members. If it's not an independent body it's not worth much as I see it. edit: Nevertheless it's a damn sight better than the states, where there's either none at all to speak of or …
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:40 AM
1

They weren't wrong considering she did in fact fail to complete the course. Would we even be hearing about this if they'd made disparaging comments about a frail 50 year old man who subsequently proceeded to fail in exactly the manner they predicted?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:12 AM
3

It's been a series of ridiculous court decisions that've led to firefighters watering down their standards, I remember reading about a couple, though the parties escape me at this point.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:11 AM
3

Frankly when it comes to public safety I don't give a flying fuck why anyone can't do it, gender and age be damned I want the best, biggest, brightest and fastest on the line when the shit hits the fan.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:09 AM
1

There's a difference between the judiciary being free of interference from the executive and legislature and the judiciary being free to be complete fuckheads with no consequences. I say this as someone with a legal education.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:07 AM
1

In terms of serving it, bartenders make sweet fuck all in terms of hourly wages, their income is pretty much from tips, which is completely divorced from the variety of beverage they're serving. If you mean bottles cost more to move about you've got a point, though it's likely somewhat offset by the cost of broken glasses/disposable cups (depending on the establishment).
/r/MensRights13/06/11 08:59 AM
0

I'm sorry if calling you on your ridiculous bullshit doesn't fit your idea of what should occur in a thread, you have my humblest apologies for offending your delicate sensibilities.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 10:26 PM
0

No, because you responded with a post that was nothing more than a personal attack, whereas the previous post had an actual argument. But then you already knew that. Your trolling needs work, no subtlety at all.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 09:16 PM
0

Yours was also the last post to include only personal invective with no supporting or even tangentially related argument, you're grasping at straws.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 08:41 PM
0

And you are either illiterate, or an idiot. Didn't include personal attacks huh? Next time you attempt to troll try to be a little more subtle, you're not fooling anyone with this kind of ridiculousness.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 04:35 AM
2

It doesn't seem to matter what season it is, if you go downtown on a Saturday evening you'll see outfits that fit the bill rain or shine, sleet or snow. So yeah, that observation doesn't hold water on closer inspection.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 03:55 AM
0

You're being intentionally obstinate here, it's obvious what's being said and it makes perfect sense. If you can't come up with a logical rejoinder just concede the point instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 03:50 AM
1

Actually given these asshats are operating on a combination of testoterone and lizard-brain logic they very well might not consider in the first place (it's not a matter of reconsidering, that's bass-ackwards thinking). Certainly not getting black-out drunk is the larger concern to be avoided, but if one insists on doing so, better to do so without the attention-grabbing garb.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 03:46 AM
2

No it does not, however you will notice those people with nice houses tend to have more security around said houses, that's not an accident.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 03:39 AM
1

I'm not aware of any jurisdictions like that in North America (I'm assuming we both occupy it based on the amount of agreement on procedure we've had so far), though I'm certainly open to hearing where they are (edit: if there are indeed such places in North America, wasn't meaning to imply they were necessarily elsewhere or anything). Either way however, my point stands, in that even if your request is required it is not all that is required. At the end of the day the decision as to whether a c…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 03:04 AM
1

The problem with what you're saying is that if you go to the police and make a statement to the effect of "I was part of a mob that beat a homeless man senseless", "I just helped someone burned down a vacant building" or "I just assisted in the smuggling of drugs across the border" you'd be arrested for the crime you just admitted to, and rightfully so, in addition to being questioned about the nature of the crimes committed by those you were with. However, if you go to the police and say "I jus…
/r/MensRights26/05/11 12:30 AM
1

You can't claim the actions of two people are independent and therefore it's possible that while both were intoxicated beyond the level needed to vitiate consent regardless of their actions at the time only one is guilty here. Both failed to secure consent, therefore both, in the very same act, violated the other (based on the current legal standard). It's not logically possible for one party violating the consent of the other to be guilty while the other, who did every bit as much violating fro…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:00 PM
1

You're neglecting to mention that Party A also requires Party B's consent and was equally remiss in not obtaining it. Again, either both are guilty or neither is. Also you're forgetting the point you just made earlier about cooperating witnesses and such. If nobody suffers sufficient post-coital (or fisticuffs) regret to make a complaint then there nothing to investigate as far as the justice system is concerned. So yes, it is relevant.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:13 PM
1

Actually trials for related offenses will often result in a single trial with co-accused. This is a bit different from that but to say you need separate and independent investigations is contrary to the fact that only one transaction occurred. If it can be determined that both parties were too intoxicated to proceed then you've either got enough guilt to go around or none at all, there's no middle ground here. Consent in the legal sense may not have been obtained, but consent in the practical se…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:47 PM
1

Actually intoxication can be a defense for a crime. Look up intoxication resulting in automatism. That's not the point though. There's no distinction here, the example in question is one where consent via conduct was given, but retracted retroactively (which is somehow allowed because one was intoxicated). The idea that consent can be vitiated for one party due to intoxication, but not for both is an affront to logic. If both are intoxicated and consent at the time, despite being too drunk to do…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:20 PM
1

That's not the argument I was making, it's that there are an undeniable number of cases where a man is convicted of rape or lesser charges of sexual assault/impropriety where he was equally or more intoxicated and there was no issue of force or expression of withdrawal of consent.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:43 PM
1

Not to pry but does it relate to criminal justice at all? I ask because your assertions seem to fly in the face of my experience and that of virtually everyone else I've spoken with on the subject. edit: Also, just to be clear, I'm not putting out any legal advice here either, just discussing in my capacity as an individual. Thanks for the reminder to add the disclaimer.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:12 PM
1

Unless you've got a career in the legal profession as well I'm going to have to ask where your assertions are coming from.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:42 PM
2

Actually there is, quite a few in fact. First there's the fact you'll likely be laughed out of the building when you attempt to report the crime to police. Second, there's the fact that despite the vast majority of "too drunk to consent" cases involve both parties being too drunk but only one party ends up seeing charges leveled at them. Third, there's the dearth of physical evidence of the crime when the man is the victim. Fourth, is the ridiculous idea that a man can't have sex unless he wants…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:24 PM
1

Actually it's just the opposite, you hear about it so damn much because there are soooo many survivors relative to other cancers. It's a lot harder to get funding for stuff that kills people so quickly nobody outside their immediate family even hears about it. Personally I think we need a lot more funding for head and neck cancers, even when survived people lose so much quality of life they often wish they hadn't.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:57 PM
3

Wrong. First of all, you don't press charges in a criminal matter, that's up to the DA's office, DoJ, or whatever the appropriate body is, you've got no say. Second, only one of those people is capable, in the practical sense, of having charges pressed on their behalf. I'll give you three guesses as to which is which.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:52 PM
1

I'd say we've got separate charges for such matters, though they may not be being used for such. Conspiracy to commit X, in addition to a run of the mill sentence for whatever crime would be a more palatable way to deal with organized violence to me. I can see where you're going with that angle, but the label of hate crime is applied to an awful lot of one off crimes that aren't part of a larger scheme.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:23 AM
1

You're assuming length of sentence makes a significant impact on deterrence and recidivism. If you do a little research you'll find that's not the case.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:04 AM
14

This is a perfect example of something that needs saying but can't be said because of feminist newspeak and censorship.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:28 AM
7

Sad but true. Funny thing is I'm almost positive I've got a better relationship track record than those doing the generalizing. I don't hate women or even dislike them a little, I just hate misandry.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:27 AM
1

That's an incredibly Orwellian worldview you've got there. People generally attack other people because they dislike something about them. If you start allowing mutable characteristics to be applicable in terms of hate crimes you've crossed a terrible threshold. That goes beyond what's currently contemplated in even the most aggressive hate crime legislation and beyond the limits of common sense quite frankly.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:26 AM
3

Assault isn't generally a matter of consent, your analogy falls flat right there. When a person is drunk they cannot consent correct? If both parties are drunk, neither can legally consent, thus both are rapists under the strictest definition of rape. Explain to me why only one of those rapists is ever charged.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:17 AM
1

Your ability to agree with something has no effect on its veracity. One is a longstanding legal concept, the other is not. Using lynching is a loaded example. The very word implies an archaic mentality. Try it again with a more realistic example and see if it's still got the same impact. To take your example to its logical (and silly) conclusion, if I get into a fight at a bar and am sober at the time one could theoretically take my actions as condemnation of drinking and those who do it. Now it…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:08 AM
1

Intent to commit the offense matters yes, I'm not so sure about intent to bring about specific results. You're conflating the legal definition of intent as an element of the offense with intent in the grammatical sense here. Intent in the legal sense is the distinction between manslaughter and murder. Intent as you're describing is a matter of the potential sociological effects of an action, rather than intent to engage in the action itself. If you're saying that we should presume intent to effe…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:27 AM
1

You've illustrated my point quite well, who is to say what the intent of the act was? Sometimes kicking someones ass is just that and nothing more, sometimes it's not. You open a very messy can of worms when you start asking judges and juries to speculate on such things.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:57 AM
1

Not disagreeing but I thought American Dad was cancelled last year.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:55 AM
1

Hate crime essentially criminalizes a variety of thought, an intellectually bankrupt and meritless thought, but a thought nonetheless. When we start doing that it's short quick slide to criminalizing less objectionable thoughts and I'm not about to go down that path. I don't see why we can't condemn any and all people who beat other people senseless regardless of their alleged reasoning. I don't see how this incident would be any less tragic if it had been another black woman they beat unconscio…
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:52 AM
1

Not you personally, but (no offense meant here) you are not indicative of the feminist gestalt at large.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:48 AM
3

I recall a transgender woman being rebuffed when applying to work at a women's shelter in Vancouver because she "had not been a woman all her life and therefore could not possibly understand the discrimination women suffer". Never mind that transgendered individuals suffer more discrimination in a year than most women will in the course of their lives, the fact they once possessed a penis is clearly all that matter here.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:46 AM
2

I didn't get past the second paragraph. I saw where she was going and it's a false equivalency. Moreover, breast cancer already receives an absolutely stupid amount of funding. More than could possibly be used by any and all researchers currently working on it. Beyond that, it's also among the most survivable cancers and I'd take a severed breast over a horrible colon-cancer induced death any day. tl;dr this is just bellyaching for the fun of it by someone who hasn't done their homework.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:42 AM
11

I think it's less an MRA thing and more a liking the anonymity of the internet thing. I like my ideas to be judged independent of my gender, race, and other immutable attributes as much as possible. To address your point though, I'm fairly open about my politics with anyone who chooses to inquire.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:39 AM
7

How so? I don't think freedom of speech is more or less valuable based on ones race or sexual orientation. I vehemently oppose homophobia but taking away peoples right to express their opinions, however stupid, is not the best way to combat ignorance.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 07:52 PM
3

Couldn't keep reading past the phrase "more economically and socially locked into marriage". As if people's personal issues with ending a marriage should in any way factor into the gendered manner in which abuse is viewed.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 06:11 AM
1

I really really hope you meant "bear" a baby, otherwise I think you'll be asked to have a seat over there in short order.
/r/MensRights13/05/11 12:23 AM
3

That's another example of the same nonsense that should be getting people fired and disbarred as far as I'm concerned.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 11:09 PM
2

This is beyond the pale. Everyone involved in this whose response was not "what the fuck does this have to do with the law?" needs a reprimand at best and a firing at worst.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 10:33 PM
2

Ok, so none of us can agree if they were men or black but I think we should all be able to agree that regardless of gender or race they're almost certainly hipster douchebags. /S In all seriousness though, this shit isn't cool but I'd hardly expect otherwise given the source.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 09:28 PM
2

You've misunderstood several things. First, there's a stigma associated with being found to have committed a criminal act, there's quite a bit of case law on the subject, for example R v. Tutton and R v. Creighton, a pair of high value precedent setting cases heard by the SCC. Second, regardless of the punishment, you've still got a finding of guilt regarding a matter that is criminal in nature (the act in question is a criminal one, as opposed to a breach of trust or invasion of privacy, which …
/r/MensRights10/05/11 08:22 AM
1

No, teaching her to be a shallow freeloader herself does.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:08 AM
1

This is extremely disturbing. The idea that a criminal matter should be decided using anything other than the standard of proof appropriate to a criminal case is an affront to the justice system and civil society as a whole. This is essentially lowering the standard to below that of a civil law suit (wherein you would be much more likely to hear expert opinion evidence and the matter would likely be adjudicated by a judge with extensive experience in the matter). I'm beyond disgusted right now.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 12:10 AM
1

Oh, now I see, you're proposing a three way swap where we swap the gold digger, for the fish, the fish for the refugee and the refugee for the gold digger. I like this idea even better!
/r/MensRights09/05/11 09:09 PM
1

I think you meant to say marriage is a "pox" not a pock. Also, you're a terrible parent and a less than decent human being.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 08:42 PM
2

I like this idea, we're rid of a loathsome creature and we get a free fish! Everyone wins! Er... everyone I give a damn about wins!
/r/MensRights09/05/11 08:40 PM
6

Without a second thought. Possibly without a first one.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 06:57 PM
1

You know what's a great way to avoid those things? Try not sticking your dick in crazy. It's simple enough and works surprisingly well. Also, for the record, the guys in the article didn't become registered sex offenders, if they had it would hardly be confirmed as a false rape claim now would it?
/r/MensRights07/05/11 08:25 AM
1

The sort of women prone to doing that sort of thing are most likely terrible people in more ways that just that one. I think it'd be easier to take note of and avoid interacting with them than you're implying. Furthermore, I've seen men beaten to a bloody pulp by guys they considered close friends. I think you're viewing things through a highly distorted lens here.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 06:21 AM
1

Don't you have the option to avoid such circumstances in both cases? You're not really making sense here.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 06:50 AM
1

True, then again, I'm much more likely to be beaten to a bloody pulp by a man than a woman, does that mean we should all live solitary hermit style existences?
/r/MensRights06/05/11 05:26 AM
1

It would work for me actually. That's much better.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 05:26 AM
1

I don't see how the authors' gender should matter one way or the other? Are you implying only women you deem to be "nice" and "reasonable" have a right to comment on this issue?
/r/MensRights06/05/11 05:09 AM
1

Or maybe we could just, you know, start locking them up in prison as they so richly deserve.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 05:07 AM
1

That's a gross oversimplification. You're either being willfully ignorant or trolling. Either way this is not the time or place.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 04:58 AM
0

If that were the case you'd think they could stop making with all the raping wouldn't you?
/r/MensRights06/05/11 03:30 AM
1

That'd be true IF it were all men who were doing the raping, rather than an incredibly minuscule subset whose frontal lobes are, by and large, not working properly if at all.
/r/MensRights06/05/11 02:14 AM
1

No worries about the length, I always favor clarity over brevity. I fully appreciate and agree with what you've said here, but I think you may have missed my point. I'm not saying there should be any difference in how society views the two victims. What I am saying is that it is foolish for a person (not going to go with your analogy here as it's a little too best case to be helpful here) to place themselves in a situation of increased risk and expect that because it's morally wrong for said ris…
/r/MensRights06/05/11 12:07 AM
2

At a basic level that's true, however we're also hardwired to react less positively to people who don't look similar to us, yet with appropriate education and exposure we realize that's our lizard brain trying to trick us into acting the part of our less civilized ancestors and discard those feelings accordingly. I think that generally speaking (this is a complaint that goes far beyond social influence in this setting alone) we take too much direction from the media and society. So while it's tr…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 08:22 PM
2

Insofar as said path still allows them to get what they're after, whatever that may be, I'd agree with you here.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 08:14 PM
1

I'm starting to look forward to your posts on this sub, you've always got a sarcastic yet insightful take on things that entertains while informing. :)
/r/MensRights05/05/11 08:13 PM
1

I am SO sick of the tired stereotype of men constantly back-slapping one another over their sexual conquests. I, and the vast majority of men I know, are generally looking for a significant other, not a series of meaningless sexual conquests as you imply. It's a disgusting perpetuation of sexist generalizations when you group men together in this way. Almost everyone I know agrees that regardless of gender, having indiscriminate sex with anyone who agrees makes one less, not more, respected amon…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 08:12 PM
1

I doubt anyone here is saying "don't dress provocatively or I'll rape you" but more "consider dressing less provocatively or exercising more moderation regarding alcohol etc. because there are likely mentally ill men in your city who may be more likely to accost you in an unpleasant manner if you do and we're pretty much against that sort of thing happening, so anything that makes it less likely is something we're probably in favor of". See the difference? edit: not saying these are my feelings …
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:59 PM
0

I doubt anyone here would agree they deserved to be beaten, however you're sadly mistaken if you think they were not fully aware of the risks they were taking when they agreed to get on the bus. In fact is was the very fact that it was risky that made it necessary for them to do. So yes, they were partially architects of their own suffering, but it was necessary as part of a broader movement to advance the social consciousness of a generation. By contrast, there's no inherent nobility in engagin…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:51 PM
3

We are also equipped with a frontal lobe that allows us to consider things critically and make value judgments accordingly. I think you give society too much credit in the decision process. If people in the 1800's could come to the conclusion that segregation was wrong despite it being legally enshrined I think modern day people can decide for themselves how to behave in social situations despite contradicting a few marketing execs don't you?
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:40 PM
2

I'm not sure I agree with that, there are certainly pathological rapists but I think, sadly, that opportunity does play a role. If there are no preposterously drunk women at a given party or event it will be awfully difficult to engage is such behavior relative to a party where they are present. That's why it's much more common to hear about rape at college parties than at the New York Met. Certainly men who even consider such behavior are to be deplored in any and all circumstances, but it's in…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:37 PM
1

Girls get more uninary tract infections than boys regardless of circumcision, your argument in favor of corrective surgery for this reason is invalid. Also, if you think it provides any protection against STD's as a group you may wish to review the literature in The Lancet which pretty unequivocally shuts down that conjecture. (Specifically, it was a study done in India with a large cohort of circumcised and uncircumcised men whrein numerous factors not addressed in the previously cited South Af…
/r/MensRights05/05/11 12:53 AM
1

Actually I'm pretty sure that was secondary after their lack of subscription to Europes religious preferences (and the associated lack of profit for European chuches). Bringing god to the heathens came first, followed by what you've articulated once we had enough missions and missionaries the first one was obviously spent. These days however you're quite right, the Taliban's treatment of women was suddenly front and center when we decided we really really needed that oil pipeline from the Stans …
/r/MensRights05/05/11 12:37 AM
1

Can't believe you got downvotes with such obvious satire.... did my bit and upvoted you.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 12:29 AM
2

Sad but true, it really won't.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 08:02 PM
2

I know, I've seen enough of your postings to get it. I was just adding my 2 cents where it seemed to fit best, sorry if it came off wrong.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:45 PM
3

I'm not much for the foster care system, but I can't see justifying having a sex offender raise those kids, if the genders were reversed we wouldn't be having this conversation.
/r/MensRights02/05/11 07:42 PM
5

I think we all know why that is, same reason that brought most of us here, gender bias.
/r/MensRights03/04/11 12:06 AM
3

Alright, forget sensationalism. Tonsils and the appendix are generally considered vestigial and unnecessary, but we stopped routinely taking those out years ago because it wasn't necessary and there are inherent risks when you start cutting people. Given the miniscule benefits of all three of these procedures I'm not sure how you can justify any of them as routine practice. Also, in terms of the small (if any) loss of sexual pleasure, perhaps you'd like to google accounts from those who've been …
/r/MensRights03/04/11 12:04 AM
2

I'd like to know exactly what your convincing evidence was? By the way, some people find the evidence for climate change to be incorrect, that doesn't mean there's any validity to their opinion or that it should be acted upon. Similarly, most people aren't doctors and should generally take the advice of those who are. That advice, simply put is: "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." Unless you've got an MD you've heretofore kept hidden you're not in a…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:59 PM
5

My mom was beaten as a kid but still turned out to be a fully functioning and happy adult. Shall we take that as proof that beating ones children is acceptable with no ill effects? That's the logical conclusion to be drawn from what you've said here.
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:56 PM
8

The problem is you'd think if this was a big an issue as you're making it out to be the medical community would have your back here, however the pediatric associations of every first world country I could locate do not recommend it. I'll take the advice of M.D.'s who've specifically trained to treat children over the opinion of a lay-person with an axe to grind, but thanks anyway. By the way, if you'd actually read the page you linked you might have noticed this little tidbit: "There is no absol…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 11:52 PM
9

Having attended UBC, she's sadly indicative of a notable portion of women there. Noxious feminism is alive and well on the UBC campus.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 06:43 AM
0

I've disagreed with everything you've said above but I'll give credit where it's due. I'm glad we can at least find common ground in that assessment.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 05:41 AM
1

I agree he shouldn't have laughed, not a good career move. That said, it can be very very difficult to keep a straight face when presented with the patently absurd. Like I said before, I don't know that I could do it.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:02 PM
1

It is patently stupid that anyone should have to take this seriously. I can't honestly say I'd be able to keep a straight face when presented with something so absurd.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 06:17 PM
3

Everyone involved in this other than the dude the letter was directed at could use a goodly dose of common sense, some manners and a goddam backbone!
/r/MensRights29/03/11 06:02 AM
6

Legally she is allowed, but from any sane perspective she's got no right to ruin a man's life for her own selfish purposes. I stand by this statement.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 02:44 AM
8

I recommend the first or third options. She's got no right to do this. Just be prepared to follow through.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 12:14 AM
1

Interesting perspective. Your assessment that some women are not actually seeking an education so much as the occasion to snare a man with an education would actually mesh with lower male enrollment rates. Consider that, if both sexes are attending college in equal numbers, commensurate to their desire to get educated, but additionally there are more women with an alternate motivation for attending it would stand to reason that there would be a disparity. I can't say I agree or disagree with you…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 10:34 PM
1

An interest in computers and a desire to pursue a CS degree are two very different things. I have the first but never once considered the second. Also, I don't think you've outlined the cause-effect relationship as far as the problems you stated and a lack of women. To be blunt I don't see how giving anyone an artificial leg up helps to counter-act stereotypes, in fact it can have the opposite effect. Discriminating against a group is rarely the best way to effect a chance in its opinion towards…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 12:38 AM
1

Much as I agree with you that it is discrimination, the Constiution isn't the source you're looking for here. There are numerous federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination on every grounds imaginable, however the Constitution only delineates what rights you have insofar as the government is concerned. The US congress (supposedly) can't make a law that discriminates against you or anyone else, however if a private individual discriminates against you your remedy will be found in state or…
/r/MensRights26/03/11 10:32 PM
5

Two comments, first it is a problem in the liberal arts, a huge one quite frankly. Second, I don't think that lack of a gender in a given field necessarily gives rise to a need to increase that gender's proportion in the field. If there aren't very many women who feel the need to enter CS for example, it may simply be the case that the majority of women don't find it appealing as a subject. I don't think it would be the first or only university subject to appeal more to one gender than the other…
/r/MensRights26/03/11 10:28 PM
4

You've really got a mouthful here. First, I don't think anyone here is taking it as an article of faith that racially based scholarships are ok. Second, just because women are underrepresented in a field does not equate to discrimination nor does it necessitate giving those who do enter those fields a leg up. Again, just because a sexist scholarship is in line with the logic underlying racist scholarships doesn't make it any better. Finally, regarding athletic scholarships, title IX has put an e…
/r/MensRights26/03/11 10:14 PM
1

I think they mean situations like the one jgzman described, where a man believe's himself to be the father and later realizes he's been duped.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:48 PM
2

That was an excellent articulation of the situation this bill is meant to address. Enjoy an upvote.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:47 PM
7

She could also have not gone after child-support. She clearly didn't need it and it obviously caused a rift between the man and his not-son. Sounds like she's just a deceitful and vindictive harlot.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:45 PM
7

It's fraud, plain and simple, but you'll never hear it called that when discussed because only men can do bad things apparently.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:41 PM
3

Usually by using one that's got a pre-existing structural flaw. Some brands are a LOT worse than others.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:39 PM
1

It's mostly posters from there showing up in MR threads with that silliness so perhaps its not fair to extend it to the whole sub.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 03:32 AM
2

Would you mind stepping over to 2Xchromosomes and filling them in on that? :) edit: this was directed at your edit
/r/MensRights23/03/11 11:47 PM
1

No need to drag out the heavyweights, how about Leonard, Hearns or Hagler? Even as low as welterweight this point does seem to hold water to some extent. edit: not supporting this kind of thinking overall, just saying that the juxtaposition the OP put forward is quite telling in its accuracy.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 11:45 PM
7

The author seems to have made the heretofore unknown discovery that some guys on /b/ don't have girlfriends.... what a visionary! Perhaps next they can determine whether women who watch lifetime are more likely to be single too?
/r/MensRights18/03/11 12:49 AM
7

That's not actually the case, anonymous is distributed across more of the web than just /b/ or even 4chan. The two are connected but not synonymous.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 12:47 AM
1

Yes it is, though your inability to treat it as such tells me I'm wasting my time.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 12:30 AM
1

More willing to? Or just lacking sufficient alternatives?
/r/MensRights12/03/11 12:27 AM
1

The one I just articulated above. That there's no way men want to die in those ways.
/r/MensRights12/03/11 12:01 AM
1

Yes, because clearly men are wanting to die in wars and work in high fatality professions. Think about it from the other side for a second and ask yourself if that honestly makes any sense.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 11:29 PM
4

Hardly in the same numbers. You're just being contrary.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 05:52 AM
3

Way to completely avoid addressing my point. Either your a troll that needs practice or you're just not reading what's been written here. Regardless I'm done here.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 11:38 PM
1

I think we may be making different points here, I agree with everything you've said, I was just pointing out that it's predominantly driven by the circumstances of the event more so than the letter of the definition (made all the more so due to its ambiguity).
/r/MensRights10/03/11 10:36 PM
3

Is it also worth spending 20+ years in jail for a ridiculous overreaction? Make no mistake, that's what you're advocating here. Self-defense can be a fairly flexible doctrine but responding with no regard for the circumstances whatsoever is just a bad idea.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 10:31 PM
3

With maximum force eh? You need to seriously stop and take a look at yourself and the advice you're giving that's terrible advice and a terrible way to live.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 08:26 PM
1

Again, it depends on the circumstances. For example, if you paralyze a man in a 1v1 fight it'll be viewed vary differently than if he was one of five men making an attempt on your life.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 08:12 PM
3

This isn't a discussion about dogs, the dog is a metaphor. You've added precisely zip to the conversation.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 08:10 PM
3

That's a ridiculous statement. Nobody's life is in danger here, if you go around applying maximum force to people you invite them to do likewise. Do you really think you're the toughest person on the planet?
/r/MensRights10/03/11 08:10 PM
1

That can be interpreted a number of ways depending on the circumstances.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 10:38 AM
1

I was the eldest by a good margin so mine were never really fair game. I ended up venting every few years into whatever poor bugger happened to push me that little bit too far. Hasn't happened in years, but I think I'm a more mellow person now.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:52 AM
1

I see what you mean. However in the situation we're talking about here you've had plenty of time to assess your potential opponent. It's not as if the man/woman in question suddenly leaped from an alleyway and slugged you before you could get a sense of their size.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 07:48 AM
1

Prepare in what sense? I'm not sure I follow and don't want to misinterpret what you're saying. I was with you up until then.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 05:10 AM
1

Funny, I had the opposite issue. I was raised strictly religiously for the first 5 years or so and overcoming the programming to be able to throw a richly deserved right-cross took a lot of time and effort. edit: that's not to say I'm a violent person, but i'm capable of it now should the situation demand it
/r/MensRights10/03/11 05:09 AM
10

Actually that's not entirely accurate. The test (as I recall it) is that the amount of force was appropriate to the circumstances, not that it was the least possible amount. You can't pull a gun in a fistfight, but neither do you have to count punches and only respond with an equal number or any such thing. As for your assessment of the OP's situation I completely agree he applied the requisite amount of force.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:40 AM
5

I see, I didn't read it that way. Generally speaking "turn the other cheek" is more easily recommended than practiced, but I can see what you were going for I suppose.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:20 AM
14

To carry your point a bit further, say the dog weighed 15 lbs, would you still attack it with as much force? If not then you've just proved my point, if so I'd simply ask WTF man?
/r/MensRights10/03/11 04:10 AM
3

That was easily the least helpful reply in the thread. Have a downvote.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 03:47 AM
15

I wholeheartedly concur that judging force, especially with the effects of adrenaline, can be tricky, however I think most of us can suss out the difference between a nose-bleed causing jab and a wound-up haymaker. The way I see it, is the same as the legal analysis for self-defense. You're not allowed to just unleash the beast, but neither should you have to mitigate your force to a nicety. edit: spelling
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:16 AM
64

Any woman who takes a whole-hearted swing at me or any other man should do so with the knowledge she is consenting, by conduct, to a physical altercation, the ending of which she may not enjoy. I don't see it as any different than if a man takes a swing. Now you shouldn't apply the same force to subdue a 110 lb woman as a 250 lb man, but personally that's nothing to do with gender and everything to do with physicality, it would be equally improper to apply that much force to a 110 lb man.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:03 AM
0

Correct, it's a human right to exist. You're not deserving of not being killed because you're Jewish or Indian or any other group. You're deserving of it as a human being.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 10:11 PM
-2

It's predominantly men, but regardless I don't think of innocent people being killed as anything but a human rights issue.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 08:19 PM
3

Soon as you recommended "call her out on that legally" I could tell you've never had to deal with this stuff first hand. Perhaps your state or the judge you got are particularly predisposed to assisting you, but by and large it's a nightmare. My dad spent literally 6 years securing custody of his son when the mother was a convicted felon, known to the state to be a habitual drug addict (delivered their son with drugs in her system and had several arrests for possession) and was a domestic abuser…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 10:19 PM
3

What's truly sad is that's actually true in many states.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 10:14 PM
2

I was just pointing out that you've made an awful lot of assertions without providing a single shred of evidence, beyond that all the appropriate counter-arguments had been made by the previous poster. No need to rehash the same points they'd just made, you've already been repudiated quite effectively.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 11:29 PM
3

You seem WAAAAAAY too invested in this issue. Clearly you've got some deep-seated insecurity or anxiety regarding this subject based on your tone and rhetoric. Perhaps you should work through your own problems with this before you start giving others advice on a subject you're clearly still struggling with yourself.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 01:17 AM
3

You seem WAAAAAAY too invested in this issue. Clearly you've got some deep-seated insecurity or anxiety regarding this subject based on your tone and rhetoric. Perhaps you should work through your own problems with this before you start giving others advice on a subject you're clearly still struggling with yourself.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 01:17 AM
1

Based on the user name I'd say a perusal of their comment history would produce a wealth of insightful gems.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 02:25 AM
2

I've found americans are more standoffish and paranoid about silly things in general, which isn't a dig at them so much as a product of their mainstream media and the accompanying 24-hour news cycle. Of course it varies by geography in both places so I'm only speaking as a genera rule.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 11:18 AM
1

It's more relevant than it seems, but it's easy to be unaware of if you haven't lived both places.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 07:50 AM
1

Last I checked "making someone uncomfortable" is not something you can be written up for assuming it wasn't blatantly creepy and intentional. If your company is big enough to have an HR dept I'd take it up with them, there's absolutely NO WAY that can stand if you contest it.
/r/MensRights07/02/11 05:13 AM
0

That abstract appears to be referencing research which has since been debunked. It makes no difference what it concluded.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 03:09 AM
0

So I've noticed.... lol
/r/MensRights20/01/11 11:27 AM
0

I have no idea what you were directing that towards but other than the quote from my post you seem to have drifted further still off topic. I'm done trying to decipher your ramblings.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 09:57 AM
-2

Actually, given that one is a single one-off event governed by the laws of his country of residence whereas the other was perpetrated under a government which was subsequently deemed illegitimate by the world community you're a bit off base. You've just gone up a level in magnitude but you're still appealing to an authority to show that it was, in fact, wrong. What do you think the holocaust would have been remembered as without nuremburg? I'll give you a hint, you remember the systematic butche…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 07:34 AM
0

The problem is that courtrooms aren't allowed to function based on what's logical, only what they're given to work with by the legislature (which I'm sure we can agree is less than logical often enough). A founding tenet of the legal system we enjoy is security against what's called 'ex post facto' conviction. Meaning if you did something that was, at the time, legal and later that act is outlawed you cannot be punished after the fact for acts which you engaged in with the knowledge you were act…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 06:24 AM
2

This guys is the embodiment of what's wrong with men. First, he lets her decide to mutilate their offsprings junk. Then, when he tells her this was a big deal for him and he expects reciprocity at some point, she nonchalantly agrees, knowing that no such occasion will ever arise. Reverse the genders here and ask yourself if that doesn't sound like something that'd have feminists sharpening their pitchforks and such....
/r/MensRights20/01/11 06:07 AM
1

You forgot hookers who've lost their "adult services" section and have co-opted the personals and their new base of advertisement.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:59 AM
1

I sincerely doubt that would be an issue regardless of the ribbons.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:55 AM
0

You're just full of progressive wisdom huh? Let's take an attempt at something pretty darn bad and respond by successfully executing something that's far worse. Real enlightened.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:39 AM
-1

I find it amusing you got upvotes despite entirely missing the thrust of the post. I'm not endorsing or denigrating the above, just pointing out you're having a discussion in your post that's got no precursor because what you think was said is not what was said.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:38 AM
-1

Well at a certain point you cross the line into other crimes such as assault, battery, coercion, intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment so yes, there is indeed a line.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:35 AM
-1

You've managed to type a great deal and convey absolutely nothing. There's got to be a career for you in legal drafting or political speech-writing.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:34 AM
0

Your last statement implies they're running around committing crimes because they know that as old people they'll get away with it. The point you should have taken away is that it's a waste of time to prosecute said old people because the reaper will probably do your job for you before you're halfway done prosecuting them. I somehow doubt letting this one go is going to inspire a rash of wife-raping with the perpetrators hoping they too won't be caught for 50 years and can thus avoid culpability…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:30 AM
0

Actually we need exactly that! Government telling us what is and isn't acceptable. If we all ran around acting solely on our own moral compasses we'd have anarchy. So yes, the fact the law was different then is BIG DEAL! Whether or not you personally condone the behavior in retrospect has precisely nothing to do with the legal question at hand. To put this in a less politically charged perspective lets consider the tort of battery. At one point this was basically a civil claim you could bring wh…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:26 AM
0

Who is this "average person"? Is he of any relation to the "reasonably prudent person" i heard so much about back in law school? Because they both seem equally imaginary to me.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:17 AM
2

Thanks for adding that to the discussion. We're all better informed for your use of profanity.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:11 AM
9

I don't think I have to be personally affected to take issue with inequities in society. Did a person have to be black to find merit in the civil rights movement or a woman to believe in womens suffrage? That said, I have been affected in quite a few ways. Any interaction I have with the the criminal justice apparatus (unless I'm an employee myself) is more likely to result in a negative outcome than it would for a woman by orders of magnitude (I have had issues with this through no fault of my …
/r/MensRights15/01/11 03:52 AM
18

The reason it has to be in opposition to feminism is that, as a man, feminism is currently eroding my interests. I don't see how I can avoid acting in opposition to something that is actively degrading my position in society. You can claim feminism is in line with mens rights, but the fact remains that womens studies programs are still sexist, the courts are still biased and society still looks at a man with a child in public as odd at best and cause for police action otherwise. The preceding ar…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 08:33 PM
1

I know he had some wacky taste in women.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:49 PM
2

If it's really a matter of genes as opposed to stuffing ones face why haven't I seen these hormonally cursed folks in the developing world? Are these genes only expressed where twinkies are for sale?
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:49 PM
4

Yes, it's very important they be physically attractive, and this one doesn't even have that going for her.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:45 PM
2

You'd think they could shoop that gap then ya know?
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:44 PM
3

Depends entirely on what they're after.
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:43 PM
2

She is totally outside my league! Just not in the way she thinks she is...
/r/MensRights20/12/10 09:42 PM
8

It's fair to say some women who call themselves feminists certainly do have a genuine interest in equality. That's part of the problem with "feminism" is it's lost all meaning and context as a definition. It can be used to describe anything from the most vicious castrating feminazi to an egalitarian humanist and in each case they'll believe they're the genuine feminist and the other is a pretender to the title. You're certainly right it's not fair to lump every group that calls itself feminist i…
/r/MensRights20/12/10 06:32 AM
4

It's mostly politicians you need to look at here. They're passing these laws to pander to a politically active minority (nothing new there) and not having any issues doing so because they aren't appreciably harming corporate interests in the process. So basically they're gaining votes and losing nothing because sadly we're not as politically active and are more likely (in the aggregate) to make our choices based on other things when voting.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 08:24 AM
1

Fair enough, I can agree with that.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 05:13 AM
1

That's a gross generalization. I know of quite a few people, men and women, who were abused as children and have gone on to live perfectly normal lives.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 04:49 AM
0

Yes, they are, and he was under the impression that they had discharged said responsibility. Consider this from the perspective of a woman who learns that the man she just had sex with has not, in fact, had a vasectomy as he had previously claimed. What's good for the gander is good for the goose so to speak. She'd have a pretty solid claim and I don't see what the difference is when the shoe is on the other foot.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 10:53 PM
2

Yes, quite a bit more childish. This guy is calling attention to a perfectly valid instance of a disturbing trend in society, albeit a relatively minor example thereof. You're just bellyaching for the fun of it.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 09:38 PM
3

Which is worse? Him whining about it or you whining about him whining about it? Creampuffery of the highest order...
/r/MensRights17/12/10 09:05 PM
2

Regardless of whether it works it's a bad idea to hook up with anyone you work with.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 09:01 PM
2

You're right, you are going to be downvoted for that, and rightfully so. That was uncalled for and pretty damn childish.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:57 PM
2

They were the most prevalent in my day as well, which concluded less than a year ago. That brand of "feminism" is alive and kicking (you in the nuts whenever possible) on college campses.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 04:10 PM
1

Well given that "scandalous" dress is something primarily used to appeal to ones' sex of choice, one would hope that with the prospect of marriage in the offing they might tone down their attempts to appeal to others. The number of partners seems the more likely culprit as a deal breaker, but as I said above that can cross into a more general indicator of overall judgment and propriety rather than a purely sexual matter. A valid point however that some men do adhere to a double standard when it …
/r/MensRights15/12/10 11:01 PM
1

Well at a certain point ones "number" starts to speak more to a lack of judgment on a more general level, simply in terms of the likelihood of contracting an STD but I think at that point the assessment works both ways equally. I've heard the term man-whore enough to know men aren't the only ones judging peoples' "numbers". Your story is somewhat similar to what happened to a girlfriend of mine in high school as well. In dating me she spurned an acquaintances' advances and in response several of…
/r/MensRights15/12/10 09:53 PM
14

In my experience it's primarily other women who seem to judge women for having numerous partners. The only men that appear to take issue with it are the ones who haven't been selected to enjoy her company (nor anyone elses' in many cases). It works along the same lines of women being much more judgmental of other women's mode of dress than men, who simply appreciate the view or curse the lack thereof as the case may be. It's beyond me whether the underlying issue is a repressed desire to do like…
/r/MensRights15/12/10 08:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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