TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

_Mclintock Archive

View 0 posts and 136 comments by _Mclintock 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

Que?
/r/MensRights12/01/14 02:56 AM
-2

You wrote that you checked my post history, and then you start replying to every post I've written. You are the very definition of a troll. lol
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:38 PM
-5

You have great stalking skills. So nice to see you again, following me around from conversation to conversation. Pathetic.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:35 PM
6

Are you seriously going to follow me around reddit from conversation to conversation to nag me like some little 10 year old twerp? lol. What a tool.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:34 PM
-2

Read my first reply. It had no venom or name calling or anything else. But his reply to me is tell me not to kill people. Give me a fucking break.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 08:31 PM
-6

why did bernie madoff get life in prison when a raper can get less? Cause a judge.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:55 PM
-5

The bottom line is that I have nothing in common with people that believe non-violent crime is as bad as violent crime. Period. Cya.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:54 PM
-6

So if I kidnap someone, and imprison them in my basement, and torture them -- which there are cases which have been reported -- that isn't a crime or a big deal? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? When did I say, or even suggest that's "not a big deal". I'm not sure if you are literally a moron or just pretending, but I'm done. I won't be reading or replying further.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:51 PM
-6

You're entire premise is a joke. What is torture? Last time I checked there isn't a criminal statute called torture. Arson that burns property is vastly different than arson that kills someone. And guess what, the criminal codes reflect that. But let's just focus on the first thing you listed because it really illustrates how ridiculous you are being and what is often wrong with this sub. Is it worse than stock fraud? Stock fraud is a NON VIOLENT CRIME. Rape is a VIOLENT CRIME. So, do you really…
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:46 PM
2

Not for nothing, but there are plenty of lawyers who don't represent their client's interests. sadly. Also ridiculous semantics.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:27 PM
-7

Is it worse than stock fraud? Murder? Torture? Bashing someone's face into a curb? Arson? Poisoning someone? Polluting a water supply? Ummmm....Yes to some of those. No to others. Mmmk??? Are you suggesting all crimes are equal? Please answer, because I like to quickly identify crazy people so I can avoid them.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:20 PM
-2

I didn't say the criminal sentence established by law for rape should be death. I'm saying if a guy raped my wife in an alley I'd be INCLINED to kill him. I probably wouldn't, because I don't want to go to jail and my wife losing her husband so soon after being raped would be even worse. But thank you for wildly missing the point.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 07:19 PM
12

I think it is a "special crime" and I think the sentencing for a guilty party should be pretty severe. If someone raped my wife I'd be inclined to kill him. BUT, the issue is how unlike most other crimes, it only seems to take an accusation to get someone in handcuffs. If you just call up the police and say, "My neighbor stole $1000 from me" with no proof they would laugh at you. But call and say "My neighbor raped me" and he is in handcuffs immediately.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 06:59 PM
9

I think anyone is going to agree that rape is horrible, a crime, and should have severe punishment. The problem, as you are finding out, is that it's about the only crime where apparently nothing more than an accusation is required for charges. If you just call up the police and say, "My neighbor stole $1000 from me" with no proof they would laugh at you. But call and say "My neighbor raped me" and he is in handcuffs immediately.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 06:57 PM
3

Not for nothing, but there are plenty of lawyers who aren't on their clients side. sadly.
/r/MensRights11/01/14 06:54 PM
0

Right, YET even in the private sector the SCOTUS claims you can't fire someone if you dislike their religious beliefs. It's not about what you and I believe the constitution says. It's was the federal government and the SCOTUS says. If a business can fire someone for their personal comments outside of work (which the constitution protects) then a business should be able to fire someone for their religious beliefs. (which the constitution also protects) But...they can't. The bill of rights was su…
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:52 PM
8

shocked how often this one is referred to as a hate group. In America, minority opinion = hate group. It won't be long until we have UK style laws and then things like "men's rights" will be extinct except for in hushed whispers face to face in coffee shops.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 01:11 PM
0

I'm wondering if you feel the other should not pay anything for their maintenance just because the parent with majority custody makes adequate money I understand your query. That's what you said earlier. I tried to answer, but I didn't do a good job. But it all depends on the context. How much does it actually cost to keep a child clothed, fed, and housed, etc? I don't think a man should be forced to spend the majority of a small income to help fund a lifestyle even for his child that is more th…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 12:40 PM
1

Courts already make these kinds of distinctions. A man making $100,000 per year will pay more in child support than a man making $30,000 at the time of the divorce. The courts are quite comfortable deciding what quality of life the child should get based on what income the parents have to base child support on. The entire concept of child support and the "responsibility" you are describing is the "best interest of the child". YET, that is clearly only within the confines of what the parents can …
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:58 AM
0

Well, then our personal interpretations of the constitution are the same, but I believe the SCOTUS has already answered challenges to the various discrimination laws and said in no uncertain terms that discrimination is an infringement of constitutional rights.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 03:45 AM
0

You never answered my original question. If I own a diner and refuse to serve black people, are their constitutional rights being infringed? Is it a constitutional issue? Yes or no?
/r/MensRights18/12/13 11:16 PM
1

Of course children cost money, but it's a fact that child support is based on income as well. A rich man will pay higher child support than a poor man. My point is that if the state is willing to basically means test the paying party to see what quality of life he should be responsible for providing through child support, THEN they should also means test the receiving party.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 11:08 PM
1

Assuming she is actually entitled to child support, it doesn't mean she is no longer entitled if she can live comfortably without it. Says the law. We know that. But it shouldn't be the case. Some means testing should be involved in taking the bulk of one person's salary to pay support to another who makes a salary many times in excess of the first's.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 11:02 PM
4

What about a means test? That seems simple.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:59 PM
-1

Go argue with SCOTUS.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 10:50 PM
1

My problem with lawyers as a rule is that they consider themselves experts on ALL things. In other words, if a lawyer represents a pharmacists in traffic court the lawyer now claims to be an expert on pharmacology. That drives me fucking insane. I have never had a conversation with a lawyer in a causal setting that was anything other than a nightmare. I've used lawyers who did their job well, but I still wouldn't spend my free time with them even if you paid me their salaries.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 09:27 AM
-1

Come down off whatever drugs you're on and then try to internet again later. Good luck. buhbye now.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 09:15 AM
0

Question: If the school had a policy that black students were presumed guilty until proven innocent while whites were presumed innocent would that constitute a constitutional infringement? I'm pretty sure I can't put out a sign that says I won't serve lunch to blacks and I can't pay all my female employees less than the males...so why would they be able to treat males like they did this man? Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination is a constitutional issue says SCOTUS.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:30 AM
0

GrimBOLD's post below is right. IF you consider existing anti-discrimination laws to be constitutional, THEN his discrimination is indeed a constitutional issue. If the school had a policy that all black people were presumed guilty until proven innocent while whites were presumed innocent....would that not be a constitutional issue (Given the current laws and SCOTUS opinions)?
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:28 AM
0

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one. This includes me. lol
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:26 AM
2

Did you even read the article? Are you literally a moron or just pretending? The entire issue was a POST in this thread and then another redditor's comment that he should have been able to find the article based on the first POST. Did you even read this thread? Because all the comments are about finding the story prior to reading it. TLDR: Go away dolt.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:25 AM
-2

WTF are you even talking about?
/r/MensRights18/12/13 05:23 AM
1

Good for you both. Anyone who has a problem with a family where only 1 parent works is clearly just jealous. It's amazing how people complain about how much "harder" things are for current generations because both parents have to work, but then consider a stay at home mother (or father) as someone looking for a free ride.
/r/MensRights14/12/13 12:06 PM
-3

I see no problem with this. Some girls go to college to find successful husbands. Some guys go to college to find hot wives. File this under "d" for "duh".
/r/MensRights13/12/13 08:33 AM
5

FWIW, a half way decent human being would have let them in the women's washroom and then stood guard or had another employee do so. This is like one of those "zero tolerance" policies schools have that leave no room for decent people dealing with individual circumstances.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 03:47 AM
-9

Sure. just a sec. Let me find my keys to the United States. brb.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 04:56 AM
-17

Yep. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've studied some pretty horrible time periods and nothing has every stuck with me like the horrors of the eastern front in WWII. Just chilling.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:55 AM
-20

I'm not really talking about "numbers", but the dehumanizing of a population. I don't know how much you know about the eastern front of WWII, but it's hard to imagine human beings treating each other (and themselves) worse. I won't give you a history lesson, but you might be interested in learning more about that specific time and place if you haven't yet. We're talking about roads made of bodies....people killed in mass, and stacked mile upon mile to provide the turf for roads. Just one example…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 05:15 AM
-26

Indeed. My concern about Russia is it's history. Russia has seen more brutality and dehumanizing atrocities than any other place on the globe (including Africa imo). What Russia did to it's own people during WWII literally boggles the mind. They do seem to be moving in the right direction and the US seems to be moving in the wrong direction, but I'm concerned about where they are coming from. I wonder if that history of collectivism and complete disregard for the humanity of the individual will …
/r/MensRights16/10/13 03:24 AM
-24

I for one would probably prefer the comparatively simple and strait forward bribery in Russia compared to the US where one needs to first hire a lawyer to figure out how to bribe. lol
/r/MensRights15/10/13 09:17 PM
-34

Thanks for the info. I've got my eye on Canada. Healthcare is important, but after a "collapse" I'm not sure if it will matter what type of system is officially in place. What Canada has going for it is an extremely dispersed population. I think more than 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. I go fishing in Canada, and it's hard to imagine the government being overbearing in some of these areas further north....especially when some collapse makes resources scarce. Also, you m…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 08:58 PM
-17

Well said. Wouldn't it be great if every person could find a place that suited them perfectly. Unfortunately, most people don't think that way. They believe whatever they think should be forced on others, down the road, across the country, and across the globe.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 08:51 PM
-24

Yeah, you're right. The greatest empires never fall into chaos and become centers of human suffering. There is no historical trend of that happening. .....Oh wait.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 06:49 AM
-99

America used to be the best place on earth. When it falls, or as it is falling, you will see it become the WORST place on earth. I'm not sure where to go, but I'm definitely looking for the next place that will be the beacon of freedom. The light here is almost out.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:52 AM
7

I disagree with everything you said, except that indeed I have noticed that "acceptance" of homosexuality is no longer the standard. "approval" of homosexuality is required. No longer is it adequate for me to say, "I think it's disgusting but it's none of my business, do whatever the hell you want". I must now say, "That's perfectly normal and fine. It's natural. High Five".
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:50 AM
1

That sounds about right to me.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 11:14 PM
1

Actually, isn't even saying, "I'm gonna kill you with a rock" without throwing it assault?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:18 AM
5

"False Equivalency" like most logic "terminology" is misunderstood and misused by people who just want to shut down debate and conversation. Someone can dismiss an argument outright by calling it a "logical fallacy" and to rebut the dismissal takes a comparatively longer more elaborate explanation which usually exceeds their attention span. Therefore it is a very effective tool. But most of these people, like the girl in the cartoon, "googled" these terms and abuse them. Any time two things are …
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:25 AM
-1

private property rights Don't go on other people's property and you have nothing to worry about.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 07:30 AM
1

you have to notify someone they are being recorded on your own private property? Surely you don't mean that. You can be suggesting that I have to place signs around my house letting people know I have security cameras. That would be....dumb.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 07:27 AM
0

Indeed. There are zero, ZERO male teachers in this school's kindergarten and first grade classes. I have confirmed that. As far as I know there may be none even at higher grades. My son has "YES MA'AM" so ingrained in his personality now that he says that to me his father. Every time he gets in trouble it's like a light switch it's flipped. Eyes go down and it's "yes ma'am". And it doesn't matter how many times I tell him..."Daddy's a man. Say Yes Sir"....the next time he gets in trouble it's "m…
/r/MensRights02/07/13 04:36 PM
23

I have a son in kindergarten and I have experienced this exact thing. His scores were so much higher at home (without assistance) than he was supposedly getting at school. My wife, who is no feminist, thinks we should just accept what the school says - so I had to get involved. On my very first meeting with the teacher I found out that for him, and him only - NOT everyone else, she had changed the parameters of the test. I had to explain to her that you cannot gauge improvement if you are testin…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 07:31 PM
1

Title hurts my brain.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:51 AM
0

Let's quantify it. Is it 1% as bad? 1/10th of 1% as bad? Just curious how much her suffering compares to his since this is in the context of dividing money for suffering.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:37 PM
-3

Yes, visiting someone in prison is like being prison. :-/
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:45 AM
-5

....yes? Thanks for chiming in. You're a benefit to have.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:31 AM
-6

Are you God? Judge of acceptable speech and evil motives. YOU say he's not evil. And YOU say my speech in inappropriate. I FOUND GOD! I've been looking for you all my life. Please tell me the secrets of the universe and the meaning of life.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:15 AM
-4

Well the guy is fucking reddit-stalking me. And he is an evil fuck that wants to kill off people he doesn't like. You would think, given his faggotry, that he would be more empathetic. But he's not.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 12:05 AM
-2

They are just words man. Much worse is that faggots actual intentions. He's an evil fuck. I wish him no actual harm, but I will call him a fucking name. That I will do.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:17 PM
0

Actually this time I was describing your passive-aggressive little reddit-wide bitch fit. I would say that's very faggy.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:14 PM
0

I would eat that faggot. But I'm not coming to Britain. No way. Can you mail me some faggots?
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:10 PM
-2

Dude. You went into my history and started following me into other random threads to just drop little bullshit passive-aggressive faggy one-liners. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 11:02 PM
-1

No it doesn't. But taking their money so they can't get treatment elsewhere and then barring them from the treatment they just paid for unless they fit some arbitrary standard you deem necessary very much does make you Stalin. You have no empathy for people. You don't value freedom or individual liberty at all. You are evil person. Go away. Or at least have the decency to keep this argument in THE THREAD ABOUT THIS ARGUMENT.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:54 PM
-2

What can I say, Keep pushing for your communist utopia. Authoritarian states have treated your kind so well in the past. Good luck.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:43 PM
-6

Hahah. Your debate is hilarious. Follow me around reddit and spout your bullshit because I made you look like an idiot in your own little bullshit thread. Also, I didn't know you were gay. Figures. You can still go eat a bowl of dicks like I said...but I guess you will enjoy it.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:31 PM
-8

Oh no! Some British faggot is going to follow me around the internet commenting on all my posts. I guess my life is over : (
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:23 PM
-3

I don't give half a shit what marriage means to you. Maybe you should just mind your fucking business instead of passing judgement on the lives of others. Again with your all-encompassing ass-hat statements: then there is something wrong and maybe you shouldn't be doing it. There are lots of reasons why people might feel the need to be formally married, religion not being the least of those. Again, try to wrap your tiny, deformed little brain around this: Saying that you can have a healthy relat…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 09:55 PM
0

if you need to put your love and commitment in writing there is something wrong. That's some bullshit. If you want to say that everything CAN be fine without doing that...that's one thing. But to say that something is inherently wrong because you feel the need to get married is some straight up bullshit!
/r/MensRights15/06/13 08:48 PM
12

That's why after getting cancer we break bad.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 06:51 PM
5

I would catch a flight to Hong Kong with my new buddy Edward Snowden
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:08 AM
4

You are right of course. Real equality can never be achieved in an unequal system.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:06 AM
6

Come out of the closet as lesbian. Write lesbian blog under assumed name to earn money. Collect permanent alimony since lesbians cannot ever marry. I hope there is a special place in hell for this lady.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:04 AM
0

I don't think the IRS is being deliberately against you, it is the IRS after all. Yeah, it's not like we've heard of the IRS being deliberately against someone before...or recently.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:59 AM
1

So she only had sex with him if he promised not to cheat. He probably only had sex with her if she promised not to be a b#tch. Looks like they're both guilty.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:21 PM
4

I did find out years later that she married some guy (who she successfully "broke") and they ended up having a bunch of shitty kids and they live in a trailer park and are miserable..... until he kills her and buries her in the woods. j/k. But seriously. You ever wonder how those news stories start?
/r/MensRights31/05/13 06:41 PM
4

Right. So? If not married...poor. If poor...welfare.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:28 PM
-6

If not child support, welfare.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:10 PM
-1

No, how can I be any more clear? I guess I'll put it in caps and bold. WHATEVER you deem a fetus to be, just be consistent. Call it a person, call a organ, call it a T-bone steak. I give zero fucks. You are a monumental moron. I cannot stand it. Go ahead and have the last word. I won't be reading or replying further.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 08:43 PM
0

Still commenting in this thread huh? wow. Anyway, WHATEVER you deem a fetus to be, if you allow it to be DEFINED as different things for different people that is inherently wrong and illogical.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 07:32 PM
3

Of all the gender studies student I wouldn't hire, the one who made a freaking sign about it is the one I would hire the last.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 08:14 PM
0

I majored in that minor
/r/MensRights22/05/13 08:13 PM
-2

lol a man with a woman's studies degree. That guy would get laid a lot if he could stand the bullshit.
/r/MensRights22/05/13 08:13 PM
0

lulz. I would hire a kindergarten graduate before her. She has no concept of "value".
/r/MensRights22/05/13 08:10 PM
0

The Harrison Ford face below. LOL
/r/MensRights22/05/13 08:09 PM
0

Well said.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:52 AM
2

Get passing grade. Sign back up for class again. Yell, Scream, Argue, Insult, Fart, Curse..whatever. Drop class.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:40 AM
8

University = Indoctrination. The only place I ever REALLY saw diversity of opinion was a philosophy class.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 04:38 AM
6

I hope there is a special place in hell for her...AND THE JUDGE!
/r/MensRights19/05/13 03:43 AM
2

Excellent point.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 01:57 AM
2

He said his writing style a product of a poor public education (I didn't really see a problem with his writing) but I didn't have a heart to tell him his whole world-view was a product of a poor public education! lol
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:51 PM
1

I can't believe you read it all. I thought you might just appreciate the overall length. Thanks for the compliment. I feel like the guy is the most reasonable statist that I've ever come across so I would invest the time into doing it right. Anyway, I'm anxious to see if he responds when he gets back and what he says.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:46 PM
1

Yep, decades later (both parents still alive) I have very great and close relationships with both of them. They still hate each other. lol
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:44 PM
2

You want to see a drawn out debate. Check this one out that is still going between me and another guy Libertarianism vs Communism. It's actually 100% civil. He seems like a cool guy, even though he's insane. lol My last post to him was 1600 words. His last post saying he would reply later was 400 words. lol
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:11 AM
2

Just thinking outside the box, but maybe you should try to reconcile with her. A friend of mine got divorced and then remarried to the same woman. He said, "The first time she married me for my money. The second time I married her for her money."
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:03 AM
2

A child can ALWAYS make a parent give them more time with the other parent. By being a pain in the ass that only a young adult knows how to be :D
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:02 AM
1

Parents got divorced when I was 9. Mother got full custody. Nothing wrong with Father. Mother moved us 1000 miles away to "family". Didn't blame Dad. Or Mom. Even at age 9. Somehow I understood. I bet his kids do too.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:00 AM
0

I agree with everything, but this too must be said. This is another great reason to find a way to make it work with your spouse!
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:57 AM
1

There is no question. Not in this case. The ISSUE is that be it a human, an octopus, a person, or whatever....it needs to be treated as the same thing for everyone. Equal protection under the law and all that. It either has rights or it doesn't. No rights = no crime. I don't care what we call it. We just need to be consistent!
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:23 AM
0

Actually it is a broccoli plant. A fetus is a broccoli plant. They taste horrible, but they're very good for you. Of course, your point is well taken, you are absolutely right and whether one argues for or against the humanity of a fetus, one should be consistent. Either every abortion is murder or the criminal in question here is not a murderer. There is no rational way that it can be otherwise.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:19 AM
1

I can't believe he did want to try again, but I think they teach that in kindergarten. "If at first your argument sounds asinine, try try again!"
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:16 AM
3

I bet if we follow that suggestion all the way out it's just a semantics change that still has him charged with murder. We call it "Bananalilypadacide" and make it only apply to killing another's fetus, but if it's a capital crime, then you have only changed semantics. Now, if it's not a capital crime, then I would argue it's probably already covered. IMO no new law is needed. The guy is guilty of aggravated battery. Anything used in a way not intended, to cause harm to another is defined as a d…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 05:14 AM
1

Of course.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 04:28 AM
13

I know the advise I'm about to give is going to suck. But IF you fail, keep track of the child either on your own or by paying someone and when he reaches adulthood you tap him on the shoulder and try to catch up on lost time. I know that sucks. Advice for IF the worst should happen.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 10:52 PM
5

There is really only one solution, no matter what, and that is to hide your assets. Before marriage, during marriage, after marriage...Hide your assets!
/r/MensRights17/05/13 10:45 PM
14

That was so fucking hilarious. I can't believe I've never seen that guy before.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 10:29 PM
1

Notwithstanding the fact that “person” in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that “person” in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings. After reading that I just have one question: Can one character that commits a crime against another character in a work of fiction be brought up on charges? lmao. EDIT: (Laughing, but it's not funny.)
/r/MensRights17/05/13 07:16 PM
1

lol
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:42 PM
1

That's retarded. Not only because it's a cartoon, but because it's a cartoon that stays the same age forever. I mean they were introduced as young adults, what, two decades ago? Shouldn't Bar and Lisa be in their 30's by now? lol
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:24 PM
1

I'm afraid I have no frame of reference about that to which you are alluding. Please clue me in.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:15 AM
2

No no. Twas a joke. A running joke really, and I was just taking it one step further. Obviously I understand the premise of avoiding "financial responsibility" since the phrasing of my original post was "hide your assets". Anyway, I get it.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 06:06 AM
1

That would have been like arguing during slavery, White people can own blacks as slaves so why can't blacks own whites as slaves? The only argument is just to end slavery. I know that's an extreme example, but I don't know how to make this (what I consider a inherently self-evident truth) more clear. Basically this would just take everything that is wrong and double it. It's also an affront to freedom of religion. If a woman's religious beliefs dictate she bring a baby to term and you force her …
/r/MensRights17/05/13 03:21 AM
8

lmao. Have an upvote. You're hilarious.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:39 PM
5

What are you even talking about? "So if a criminal points a gun at your head, and you have time to draw your own gun and shoot them first, and kill them, they are to be protected? " WTF does that have to do with anything? Your question is literally nonsense. You butcher the English language so badly that I can't figure out what the hell you are talking about. Protect the guy that just got shot? What? No citizen can kill someone unless in self defense. Killing something is an act. "Murder" is a c…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:31 PM
9

But a person was killed, weren't they? Not according to the supreme court. When deciding Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS said they weighed two competing interests: protecting the mother's health and right to privacy and protecting the "potentiality of human life". The entire premise is wrapped up in the idea that a fetus is a POTENTIAL life. Not a life. Therefore, murder cannot be logically applied to the wrongful termination of that fetus.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:21 PM
5

Here is your financial abortion. AKA "marriage certificate".
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:06 PM
4

Oh, so SHE, the mother died?
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:05 PM
1

No, he doesn't have the right. No one is saying a crime wasn't committed. The crime is not murder. Please try to follow the bouncing ball as I lay it out for you: A man does not have the right to force a woman to have an abortion Doing so is a crime That crime cannot logically be murder WHY NOT? I'm glad you asked. When the supreme court decided to make abortion legal it said it weighed two conflicting needs. protecting the privacy of the mother protecting the "potentiality of human life" (their…
/r/MensRights16/05/13 11:02 PM
3

You took that very well. I'm impressed.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:10 PM
6

you mean all fetuses are Schrodinger's human. according to US law anyway.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:09 PM
1

Absolutely horrible ASSAULTS you just described.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:08 PM
-1

liberalism
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:07 PM
2

The court said it was weighting two opposing factors. protecting the mother's health protecting the "potentiality of human life". The entire premise is wrapped up in the idea that a fetus is a POTENTIAL life. Not a life. Therefore, murder cannot be logically applied to the wrongful termination of that fetus.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 10:02 PM
1

Ah, have an upvote.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:57 PM
10

Except the right of a woman to have an abortion is entirely based on the premise of the fetus not being a living human being. The abortion laws are as just as slavery. -All men ARE free, cause blacks aren't human. -It's only legal for the mother to kill a fetus, cause if she want's to kill it it stops being human. Derp.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:54 PM
-1

Dude. You are like a blind kid on a baseball team you are missing the point so badly. It's either a human or it's not. If not human, killing it can't be a capital crime. Nuff said.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:52 PM
-4

Woman have the "morning after" pill. Men need a "hide your assets" pill
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:43 PM
16

Woman have the "morning after" pill. Men need a "hide your assets" pill
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:43 PM
1

Are you describing what you think is right or just summing up the law as it stands? I need to know before downvoting.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:41 PM
8

Just like the other thread where a woman WAS HARASSED if she THINKS she was harassed. Now a fetus IS A HUMAN if she THINKS it's a human. Otherwise it's property. EDIT: It's ridiculous in case I didn't make that clear.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:39 PM
8

I think you should separate your arguments into two parts, and abandon the first part. lol Men shouldn't have the financial responsibility for babies they had no say in bringing to term. That they do, shouldn't give them the authority to force an abortion. Maintain the moral, ethical, and logical high ground and just stick to removing financial responsibility from fathers who do not want children prior to their birth.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:38 PM
10

No one is arguing a woman should be forced into an abortion. No one is arguing that someone who kills ANOTHER'S unborn child is not guilty of a crime. We are arguing that the crime of doing so cannot logically be murder.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:35 PM
6

Yeah, that's not murder. MURDER: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Not a crime. Not unlawfully. No malice. No premeditation. AAAAAAAhhhh Swingandamiss.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:33 PM
6

I understand the words you have written, but they don't jive with actual arguments for abortion. The argument goes, "It's not a person it's a fetus". Period. And, well, murder requires a human victim. Period. Therein lies the rub. We can accept it as a flaw in our society or fight against it or whatever. But you can't pretend the discrepancy doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:27 PM
13

Exactly. Just like a landlord may kill a tenant he no longer wants to occupy his house. Wait, what?
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:25 PM
4

Please answer this question with one word. Is a fetus an HUMAN or PROPERTY?
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:23 PM
9

This has unofficially been going on for some time.
/r/MensRights16/05/13 07:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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