TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

abk0100 Archive

View 3 posts and 937 comments by abk0100 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Did anyone else zoom in on the text alone so they could read this without have to stare at baby penises?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 10:02 PM
0

Italy really knows how to get guys to watch TV. I've considered moving there just for the commercials.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 09:59 PM
1

What the fuck point are you trying to make?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:05 PM
1

OKay, that was pretty funny.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:02 PM
1

Yeah, I got that. That's why I corrected you. The politically correct system would label Celda a terrorist, because they aren't from Texas; they're from everywhere in the country. But don't let me get in the way of your trying to make fun of stereotypical Texas Republicans (or whatever it is you're doing). Personally, I think those kind of jokes went out of style while Bush was still in his first term, but to each their own.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:42 PM
1

Is that supposed to be sarcastic? Because I think "No one gets left behind" is already military policy.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 07:36 PM
1

"Discrimination's okay as long as it's a very small amount of people that are being discriminated against." Do I have that right?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:40 PM
0

Ah, I missed that. OKay, let me see. Women are physically inferior to men in every possible regard (Upper & lower body strength, height, weaker joints, more prone to different types of injuries with fractures being one of them) and so an and so forth. A 12 year old boy is more fit for soldering than an average woman. This is not misogyny, it's biological facts. And what is a female soldier to do when her 200 pound squad mate needs to be carried out of a hot zone? So your reasons are a bunch of g…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:57 PM
1

*terrorist
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:55 PM
2

Based on...?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:52 PM
2

Cite the existence of sexual slavery? Seriously?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:49 PM
2

Hahahhahahahahaha. That's great.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:46 PM
0

having them believe that becoming wage slaves was the best possible way for them to live their lives. Feminism, or the majority of political philosophies?
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:45 PM
2

You can sue for unjust arrest, but not just innocent arrest. You can only sue if the police actually broke the rules.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:40 PM
1

for numerous reasons. At first I didn't agree with you, but then I heard about the reasons.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:36 PM
1

I don't know for sure, or at all really, but I'm going to assume that the answer is "no."
/r/MensRights29/10/11 06:34 PM
1

If this isn't a case where free speech comes into play, (and I agree with you - it isn't), then I don't know why you started with that "shouting 'fire' in a theater doesn't count as free speech - that's inciting violence" stuff. This isn't a case of the government censoring people, but it seemed like you were arguing that the government is completely within their power to censor people in this way, because saying certain things "doesn't count" as free speech.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:52 PM
1

People of both genders are far more likely to be victims of relationship abuse than a hate crime, there are far more "races" to address than there are genders, thus increasing the likelihood that a campaign directed to one particular race is in fact biased Do you mind explaining this part? I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. How does this number of different races factor in? You're saying that if they were a couple more genders, that would make this campaign more likely to be bi…
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:37 PM
1

And that's how you completely eliminate free speech. By giving the government the power to decide when someone is and is not "inciting violence and mayhem" by expressing their opinion.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:25 PM
1

Who is upvoting you? I don't understand.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 08:21 PM
3

Which part do you disagree with? The "feminist bigot" part, or calling it mutilation?
/r/MensRights28/10/11 06:40 PM
1

What a fucking joke. If you actually believe that one of the parties is "trying to run the USA into the ground," and the other isn't, then I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. You've already fully bought in to all the generalizations and talking points you've heard. The only way you could be right would be if the world were as black and white as a Superman comic. I'm going to assume that the world we live in isn't full of half mustache-twirling villains and half slightly misguided int…
/r/MensRights24/10/11 05:30 AM
2

When I say "moral religion," I don't mean a literal religion. I'm talking about when someone on the left says "It's okay to force everyone in the country to do x, because that's the only moral way to run a country." It doesn't matter if they believe in God or not; they still have an irrational religion that they subscribe to.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 07:22 PM
2

It could easily be argued that many forms of female circumcision (removing the clitoral hood, for instance) have way less of an effect on sex life than male circumcision does.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:16 PM
14

Seems like you already understand things pretty well already. Most anti-circumcision people think that children shouldn't have fully functioning parts removed from their body unless theirs a very good reason for it. And, despite the impression you've been given, the reasons used for circumcision aren't very good at all. The reasons tend to be things like "it will decrease his chances of getting AIDs by .0001 percent (assuming that the other studies that show the opposite results aren't correct)"…
/r/MensRights23/10/11 06:09 PM
1

For every thing that has been made legal, another 2 or 3 (at least) have been criminalized.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:58 PM
7

is that targeting a message to a particular group is not by itself biased. Fine. I'll accept that point. But because you still aren't spelling out the subtext, could you please finish your explanation? Obviously, you think that my "only blacks can stop rape" campaign is biased. So fill in the blanks and explain why that is biased, but this isn't. What would you have to add to the domestic violence campaign in order for it to be on the same level as my biased black-rape campaign? What's missing?
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:58 PM
2

non-sequitur. Please try to make sure your comments relate to the conversation before making them.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:44 PM
0

Who do you consider the "left?" From my experience, most politicians on the left still want to force their moral religion onto people, just not the same one as the right.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:40 PM
1

He's pretending to be manboobz (without the underscore.) He's basically trolling a troll.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:33 PM
12

This is great news for the "Only blacks can stop rape" ad campaign that I've been working on. Thanks for your support. Can I quote you on the posters? There's nothing remotely biased about any awareness campaign who's very intention is to direct the message to a particular gender (or any group) -Philagator
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:29 PM
0

And I said that if you did have jobs to fill, and filled them with black Americans, then I would sue you for discrimination.
/r/MensRights23/10/11 05:21 PM
1

I would sue you for discriminatory hiring practices.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 11:55 PM
1

Yes, that is one example, correct.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 11:39 PM
2

And in modern times, I've had someone try to tell me that women were worse off on the Titanic, because they were forced to get on the boats and take care of their children instead of being allowed to honorably sacrifice themselves.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 07:13 PM
2

Except if you're a woman and you decide to get pregnant.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:14 AM
1

Kudos on being consistent when it comes to abortion at least. But should women be forced to pay for the care of their child if they give it up for adoption? (Essentially, should they have to pay alimony to the state?)
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:11 AM
1

The problem is that so many people still disagree and fight against the first part of that statement Seeing as most of the people that support abortion also support alimony, I don't see how that's the problem.
/r/MensRights22/10/11 12:01 AM
1

I'd tape her butt-cheeks together, if you know what I mean.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 11:38 PM
1

Having someone push you into a corner, and start tearing off your clothes would probably fall under "temporary incapable of refusing the advance due to a situation beyond her control," don't you think?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:56 PM
1

Either you're wrong, or you refuse to explain why you think you're right, which is basically the same thing.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 08:41 AM
1

My point was just that you don't necessarily need to be sure that it isn't an innocent person, whereas killing someone you're sure is an innocent person is illegal. I'm talking about saying "intel says there is a 95% chance these people aren't innocent, so we should attack." No, they don't know for sure they're killing innocent people, but that's a choice to kill people that you know might be innocent civilians. It's not a snap decision, or an accident, or a misfire.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 11:42 AM
1

What's a "political policy?" Isn't that just policy?
/r/MensRights16/10/11 12:59 AM
1

...what?
/r/MensRights15/10/11 11:57 PM
1

However, killing of non combatants, killing of POWs, killing of unarmed enemies Again, close, but not quite. Killing someone you're sure is an unarmed non-combatant is usually illegal. It's still sometimes legal to attack unidentified targets, and if that target happened to be a harmless family, well, that's just the way things go. I agree, it may be "needed" to the POTUS but not the indiv. soldier. In that case I would agree that a moral dilemma will arise. Personally I think anyone who puts Go…
/r/MensRights15/10/11 11:52 PM
1

The military has protection, albeit not encouraged I imagine, for soldiers who refuse to obey an immoral order. Illegal, not immoral. If you refuse to obey an order just because it's immoral, then you've committed a crime, and you will be treated to suit. But the part of your comment I quoted was more about where soldiers are sent, not what they're ordered to do. What I was really saying was: if you join the military under the assumption that they'll be sent to do something that is "needed," the…
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:42 PM
1

only 1/4 comments are saying that MR isn't the place for this. The rest are saying that you're just wrong.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 10:36 PM
7

Apparently there's some part about a girl being taught about sexuality by an older woman, (or, in legal terms, being raped) and saying that it was a good experience and that she's happy it happened.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 07:22 PM
3

What we strongly despise is obeying people that were created by mother nature to nurture You should become an evolutionary psychologist. I bet the field would benefit from your instinctual assumptions; it's really something they're missing out on.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 07:20 PM
1

assuming their country will send them when, where and if they are needed to defend is morally wrong? Anyone who blindly assumes that their country knows what is right and wrong is doing something morally wrong. Anyone who blindly assumes they're doing the right thing without ever actually thinking about it for them self is doing something morally wrong.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 07:18 PM
4

Yep. An action. One. Ever hear the one about the broken clock?
/r/MensRights15/10/11 07:17 PM
2

I think it varies depending on the state, but breathalysers are enough evidence in some situations. But, again, even if you're sure the machine got things right, that doesn't prove you were drunk, just that you had a certain blood alcohol level. They still haven't even tried to prove that the person actually committed a crime.
/r/MensRights15/10/11 12:42 AM
-47

I heard this is where to go to do my trolling. So what's up guys? Beat any good bitches lately?
/r/MensRights13/10/11 11:31 PM
4

Every DUI case violates the standard of evidence. They don't need to prove that you were driving drunk; they need to prove that you had a blood alcohol level of .08, which, for huge amount of people, wouldn't be considered even close to "drunk." Except they don't even need to prove that, because it's been ruled acceptable to use an inaccurate piece of technology. So you don't even need to prove you broke the law; just that a machine said you broke the law. It would be like if we created some kin…
/r/MensRights13/10/11 08:56 PM
0

Um, okay, I could try. Oh wait, "ladies"? never mind.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 08:44 PM
3

You just say that because of how afraid you are, or something.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 01:11 AM
20

If you live in a culture where you know that a large amount of people really don't want to have sex with people with tails, then yeah, you should probably disclose it.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:24 AM
2

Actually, he went back and forth depending on the episode. I don't think the animators could agree on whether or not he was supposed to be the Penguin from the movie.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 12:09 AM
2

You shut your goddamn mouth.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:07 PM
1

I never thought of it that way.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:06 PM
1

So, like I said, when I make jokes about Nazis killing thousands of Jews and one clown, I'm saying that the holocaust is trivial? That's just stupid. If we couldn't joke about things that are important, than comedy wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:04 PM
1

Just cover your ears for that part of the opening like I do.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 09:03 PM
0

All I do know, is that if it was destructive the societies that practice it would have died off and the ones that didn't practice it would thrive, but that clearly has not been the case. That's just ludicrous. Societies don't rise and fall based on single variables. I could list a thousand destructive elements in American society, but none of them are going to cause the entire nation to die off any time soon.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 08:59 PM
2

So, like I said, when I make jokes about Nazis killing thousands of Jews and one clown, I'm saying that the holocaust is trivial? That's just stupid. If we couldn't joke about things that are important, than comedy wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 08:55 PM
3

"then explained how men only want to not be cut so they can enjoy sex." You don't need help explaining why circumcision is bad, she seems to already understand that completely. You need to explain to her why having a small amount of compassion and empathy is a good thing.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:50 PM
2

Everytime lore of a major comic, video game, etc. character is retconned there's always an outcry from someone who wants the characters development to remain in the direction it's heading or at the status quo. Except when it's the opposite, and the retconning that people are complaining about was done to preserve the status quo. It's not change that fans don't like; it's stupid changes. And I kind of agree that making this is a stupid change. It doesn't ruin the character or anything, but it's j…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:47 PM
4

General rule: If you see a stock photo used in an article, stop reading it.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:38 PM
2

Perhaps you can also take it as a reference to Tim Burton's sequel to his Batman, Batman Returns, in which Danny Devito plays supervillain, The Penguin. That Penguin sucked. Flippers for hands? What the hell was he thinking?
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:35 PM
3

or makes a rape joke and people allow it to happen. So when I tell my Hitler jokes, that makes me part of Nazi culture?
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:33 PM
1

How?
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:22 PM
5

If the argument is that it's ok, but that people should be informed with facts about why they should or shouldn't do it, then great. Almost. The argument is that it's ok as long as you're informed of the facts, but since it's impossible to ever inform a baby of the facts, it should never be preformed on one. (unless it's necessary for some reason) In effect, circumcision would be stopped almost entirely in first world countries, because barely anyone would actually decide to circumcise them-self…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:22 PM
3

This pertains more to my interest in Star Trek than my interest in MensRights. It's "no MAN" has gone before, you jerks. "no one" doesn't even make sense. You aren't exploring places where no "one" has gone before; you're exploring alien planets where "ones" have been living for thousands of years. You're exploring places where no humans have gone before. And "man" sounds better than "human."
/r/MensRights11/10/11 05:18 PM
1

What if he had called him a "boob?" Would that have been okay?
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:55 PM
1

We're taking it back.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:55 PM
1

The fact that you don't realize you have white male privileges is just more proof that you have them.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:48 PM
2

Wouldn't the gender role be called "masculinity?" "Man" is just the sex.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:45 PM
14

This is just so fucked up. Not the case itself. I'm sure mistakes like this happen all of the time, for all different procedures. But the way it's being argued about. Instead of "how much punishment should this doctor be given for admitting to being stupidly irresponsible and causing irreparable damage on someone against the will of anyone in the family," it's "Did he actually do any damage?" "Durr, I'm circumcised, and I don't mind at all! Where does this family get off thinking they can be mad…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 11:43 PM
2

I really didn't know which word you were talking about. If I look in the dictionary and find feminism, will that tell me that feminists, in general, don't want to oppress men, and that "they are certainly not a majority?" The dictionary definition of the word has little to do with what people involved in the feminist movement actually think.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:33 AM
2

he clearly has gender identity issues, so yes You're saying that should be the only criteria? All it should require is that a child has some sort of issue with their gender identity? Shouldn't we be at least a bit more cautious?
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:26 AM
2

The kid's apparent first words were "I am a girl. The fact that he had this idea in his head while his mind was still barely capable of deductive reasoning doesn't help your argument.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:24 AM
1

Except for the fact that he's never said that he wants to pass any laws banning abortion...
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:20 AM
1

I don't like anybody who hates people who don't fit into their narrow vision of reality The irony is completely lost on you, isn't it? I guess there's a thick line between "like" and "hate," and Paul has allegedly crossed it.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:19 AM
0

trolling is in the eye of the beholder... It definitely isn't. That's something only trolls say.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:18 AM
2

The thing is, it's pretty common to get to stage 6 and then never go any further.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:17 AM
2

My work preserving brand integrity is complete.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:12 AM
1

Which posts are you talking about? Did my bias show when I implied that you should leave because you can't understand the concept of men being misandrists?
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:11 AM
1

And I'm looking for...?
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:10 AM
3

Okay, fine, show me why you think that it's 20% conspiracy theorists. Or even 5%.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:09 AM
1

Is this the trolling or the "providing inciteful commentary" part?
/r/MensRights01/10/11 12:08 AM
1

You really thought it was necessary to tell us that?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:58 PM
3

You know, exactly one comment ago you were defending the idea that r/mensrights is full of conspiracy theorists. Now you're telling me that you shouldn't have to defend it. I could respond to either one of those arguments, but you have to pick one first, and then stick to it.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:54 PM
1

No, ragu is an Italian meat sauce or stew, usually made with carrots, onions, celery, and tomato. You're thinking of Ragú.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:52 PM
0

There's a definite possibility you're trolling, but still, there are countless studies that show that women are more similar to each-other overall than men are. It may be harder to confirm the mental aspect, but at least biologically, it's undeniable.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:47 PM
1

And if you'll look, you'll see that he hasn't been even here for a month a so. And it's not like the majority of the subreddit agreed with him even when he was here.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:45 PM
3

But they also tend to teach everyone to hate themselves and their reproductive organs, so, equality, I guess.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:41 PM
2

come again?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:40 PM
1

or be forced to post a comment to express their bigotry. And that would be an improvement?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:34 PM
2

The "bad stereotype" wast that r/mensrights is full of conspiracy theorists.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:32 PM
0

At least you're nice enough to admit it. I'm still not sure whether or not thingsarebad is one.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:29 PM
0

Society does not discriminate against you for being white or straight. The government discriminates against white, straight men, even if society doesn't. (but it does)
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:22 PM
1

The citation is the rest of his fucking comment: Legally, you can be discriminated against for being a white male. This part is completely true. When homosexuals are discriminated against, their right to legal retribution is recognized. When straight men are discriminated against, they often have no options.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:20 PM
2

It's sort of a gray area though. It can be hard to tell whether someone is being persecuted just for being gay, or for being gay, and also a man.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:16 PM
3

pretty sure he didn't say they are.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:15 PM
8

Usually I think these political cartoons are pretty terrible and simplistic, but this one isn't bad.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:11 PM
3

I look at posts like this as recruitment tools. Can't get anyway out of office until more people agree with us.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:09 PM
1

As I sport a fine dick, I doubt that I sound like a feminist (had to look that up lol).
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:03 PM
2

If you'll notice, I never said it isn't rue. I said that you're just declaring things without even bothering to explain how you know them. If you had presented a single "fact" for me to face, then I would have done so.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:01 PM
1

And then those organizations have some territory, be it a virtual space or actual land. And then they get big enough that you need someone whose job it is to enforce the rules, or vote on them. And then someone breaks the rules, or disagrees about their interpretation. And doesn't want to leave. And you have to force them out. You're equating "forcing people out" with "never allowing them to join." There's a huge difference between not allowing someone to join your group, and forcing people out …
/r/MensRights30/09/11 10:05 PM
-2

No, I'm asking why the people on your side of the argument can never seem to think of a way to justify themselves besides "I'm right because you're a bigot."
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:53 AM
1

You mean all 2 of them? I don't know, why don't you ask them? It'll just take you a few seconds. Do you want me to do it?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:43 AM
1

Yup. It would probably be closer to surgically removing part or all of her nipples.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:41 AM
2

Oh, yeah, I agreed with all that stuff. And if you're talking about just the strongest 10-20% of men, then, yeah, that does pretty much exclude women.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:36 AM
0

At the same time, some want to be viewed as a particular gender, getting insulted if you don't call them a woman. So? Bigot much? Why does that seem to be the only way anyone is capable of defending transsexuals?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:34 AM
6

So does r/anarchism.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:33 AM
1

Not that I'm trying to defend the cesspool that is r/anarchism, but it really isn't against the principles of anarchy to have voluntary rule-based organizations. It's mostly the involuntary rules that anarchists tend to have a problem with.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:31 AM
2

Feminism is not about oppressing men. Voidkom has said it! It must be true! they are certainly not a majority. IT MUST BE TRUE!
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:26 AM
2

and AnnArchist for [2] supporting this post even though it's not on-topic. Seriously? His post was perfect. You're just looking for problems.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:15 AM
2

I'm okay with recognizing LGBTQF victims, as long as we distance ourselves from just about every pro-LGBTQF group that currently exists. So, basically, the same way we treat women's rights.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:10 AM
7

The first and foremost is that women simply are not as strong. That's a biological fact. The biological fact isn't that woman are not as strong, it's that women tend to not be as strong.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:08 AM
-1

She also spoke with President Obama at a fund-raising event in California on Sunday about his anti-bullying campaign and tweeted: “Bullying must become illegal. It is a hate crime.’’ Yes, let's get more children involved in America's criminal justice system. That sounds like a recipe for success. Is that quoting Lady Gaga? I predict that, in the long run, people trying to prevent this sort of thing are going to do far more damage than the bullies themselves ever could. It's going to be continuou…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:04 AM
2

As I sport a fine dick, I doubt that I am a misandrist (had to look that up lol). You're new around here, aren't you? Please don't stay.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:51 AM
1

http://tkd.ucoz.co.uk/index/open_fist/0-45 They were just clarifying that she wasn't using Taekwondo.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:50 AM
1

Isn't that the premise of the show?
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:42 AM
1

They are historical precedents where tolerating hate speech led to some very fucked up situations. I'm sure I don't have to tell you which. Okay, but give me a historical precedent where inhibiting speech has led to the prevention of fucked up situations. I can give you plenty of terrible things that it has caused, and plenty of terrible situations that have not been allowed to change due to a lack of free speech, so can you think of an example of the opposite happening? Maybe a society that was…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:34 AM
1

And Maxwell's Silver Hammer shows that the Beatles were actually murderous psychopaths.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:41 PM
0

Public announcements inciting hatred against any group have a valid reason to be banned. I disagree. And the fact that I think blatant lying should be banned does not entail that I agree that "inciting hatred" should be banned. They are two separate issues.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:38 PM
1

They seem to thrive on it? So you're happy with the way recent generations of women have turned out?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 10:37 PM
1

If you're going to separate kids based on how they learn, then why not just find some simple way of testing how they learn, and then categorize them that way? If nothing else, couldn't we just have 2 classes, each with a separate learning style, and then let the kids pick which one they should be in? Wouldn't even that be superior to separating them based on something as arbitrary as gender?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:10 PM
2

Not really. They're still being oppressed by the law. It's just that some of them found a workaround. Enslaving black people, for instance, would still be oppressive even if a large amount of them found a way to convince their masters to let them go free.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:08 PM
3

Did you have a point, or is this just general trolling?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:44 PM
1

Oh please. Otherwise, prepare to accept tobacco companies advertising the healthy aspects of smoking... :-/ You want X to be legal? Why, that's means you want Y to be legal too! Don't try to deny it! See, X and Y are both in the same general category, therefore, it's impossible for one to be legal and not the other.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:41 PM
2

It's a circular argument. Don't try it because there's no evidence. Then: there's no evidence this will be helpful. Meanwhile, boys get discouraged and drop out in droves. Let me say, I completely understand where you're coming from. I had a completely miserable time at public school. I mean, really, completely awful. I even had to deal with a lot of female teachers treating me like an animal because I was a boy. My problem is that what you're proposing wouldn't have helped me, and it won't help…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:38 PM
2

I said that they effectively had the vote in many cases. Okay, fair enough. But you do understand that that's basically completely irrelevant, right?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:24 PM
1

The girls can all be perfectly safe with their female teachers Do you think that would help? Making sure that girls are cut off from adults of the opposite sex?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:22 PM
2

Well that's great that you think that you know how boys are "supposed" to act. If you're giving me a choice between treating all boys like girls, and treating all boys like the average boy, then I don't think I care which one gets picked. Either way, you end up with a lot of people that are being treating people in a way that doesn't help them just because of their gender. Segregation might result in the genders being treated equally, but it wouldn't result in individuals being treated equally. …
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:19 PM
1

The thing about teaching in a way that works for 80-90% of boys is that, for the other 10-20%, school is really going to suck. Hence why you should treat people as individuals, instead of parts of a gender.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:14 PM
1

How would separating the boys stop them from being indoctrinated?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:20 AM
2

uh-huh. There are a lot of obvious ways I could respond to that in order to illustrate exactly why it still wouldn't be the same as actually giving women the legal right to vote. So obvious are they that, again, you would have to be either a troll or an idiot to not think of them yourself.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:19 AM
1

are you trying to out-troll him or something?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:15 AM
2

Also, given the way the present system is apparently harming boys, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to fall back on it as the "safe" position. Why? What if you'd end up hurting things even more? Shouldn't the default position be "no segregation of any kind," and then, once we find a good set of criteria for segregation, we could change to that?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:13 AM
1

Wait, I'm starting to get confused. Are we supposed to be disagreeing with this post? I know it has all this "feminist," "women's rights" stuff everywhere, but there's nothing wrong with the content that I can see. Is r/MensRights for treating children differently based on their gender? Like, in general? Because that sounds terrible.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 06:06 AM
2

The difference is that in one scenario, all women have the right to vote, and in the other scenario, only women who've gotten married, and are capable of controlling their husband, can vote. And even then, they have no way of knowing what actually happens in the voting booth. I don't know why I typed all that though, because if you didn't understand that already, it's because you're a troll, or an irretrievable idiot. And I'm feeling optimistic today, so I'll assume it's the former, in which cas…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 05:59 AM
6

But I actually really like the article on the ACLU website Do boys and girls learn differently? The best answer is that all students learn differently. These differences are based on many factors, and do not break down simply along gender lines. A teaching strategy that helps one girl may not help another, and an approach that one boy responds well to may not work for another boy. and Sex segregation based on theories of gender differences is the wrong approach because it encourages educators to…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:44 AM
1

You chop off sensitive tissue, it's going to reduce sensitivity. Nu-uh! Also, pain doesn't matter as long as you forget that it happened afterwards.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:37 AM
1

No no you need to be a better troll. You have a name that says your a troll and in reality your just bitchy little hobbit who has to resort to cheap tricks like using all caps to get attention. Good luck getting your own bridge with your skills.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:33 AM
1

You know she was murdered at the age of 10, right?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:30 AM
3

Check out this collusal dick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skydeepblue Go down to the "February 2010," section, and then look at the "You have been blocked. Please see this diffs for evidence:" part. Every edit he's made to the DV article has been idealogical twisting of the wording and evidence. He changed There continues to be discussion about whether men or women are more abusive, whether women's abuse of men or men's abuse of women is typically more severe, and whether abused men s…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:22 AM
1

That's kind of stupid.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 11:56 PM
1

"Offensive_Brute?" they'll say, "he was the Jonathan Swift of his time."
/r/MensRights26/09/11 11:45 PM
2

You know you've failed at trolling when no one can even tell for sure who you're trying to troll.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 11:44 PM
1

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the episode where Joey has Phoebe make him a fake foreskin out of silly-putty or something so that he can do a nude scene in a historically accurate movie. That's some subtle trolling. You'd only get it if you knew the obscure episode you were talking about.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 10:57 PM
2

Now you're just being ridiculous.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 09:07 PM
1

Brunt2's weird. Half the time he's somewhat reasonable, and half the time he acts like an obvious troll. If he is trolling, then he's mastered it.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 08:49 PM
1

But they didn't have the vote. They lacked the legal privilege to vote. Whether or not they were able to influence men into voting how they wanted is a different question.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 08:47 PM
1

I completely get where you're coming from. But still, even if you would be better off if only men could vote, you'd okay with the government doing something so blatantly unfair?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 07:03 PM
1

If someone removed a few inches of skin from anywhere on your body, would you consider the loss to be inconsequential? If a section of skin on even just your inner thigh had all the nerve endings removed, do you think that that would have no effect on what you can feel during sex?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:59 PM
1

However, does this alter the function of the penis itself? Yes. Doesn't a circumcised man have the same sexual function as an uncircumcised man? No. Even if you assume that there is absolutely zero sexual pleasure that comes directly from the foreskin itself, (something that is incredibly far-fetched considering that sexual pleasure can come from anywhere on the body that has nerve endings, from your feet to your ears) you're still noticeably changing the way that the penis functions.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:57 PM
3

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question, does it? If we have to have a Democratic government, are you saying you'd be okay with one run exclusively by male voters?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:52 PM
1

which?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:50 PM
7

"We aren't discriminating against men when we pass laws that favor women. We're just making up for society's inherit discrimination against women." No one here accepts that kind of logic when feminists use it, so don't think it will work just because you've reversed the genders.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:02 PM
1

While that's pretty clearly true, do you actually think that's a good reason for giving men privileges that women don't have?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:00 PM
2

No, i hate you for being selfish. Isn't hating people because they are selfish, in itself, selfish? If you hate someone because they want to keep what they have instead of sharing it with you, aren't you the one being selfish?
/r/MensRights25/09/11 05:55 PM
3

Marxist type view: "Let's make a more just society, then get rid of most of government, if not all of it." Step 1: Create a huge, authoritarian government. Step 2: ...haven't figured this part out yet. We've tried some things, but none of them have ever worked. Step 3: Ultimate freedom! Let me know when you work out step 2, and then maybe I'll consider step 1. In the meantime, I'd like to stay on step 0 if possible.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 05:53 PM
2

What Celda said. Protests are constantly happening all around the country - all around the entire world - and having little to no effect. Things change when an overwhelming amount of people think they should change. Just having the protest alone will do nothing, aside from maybe bringing a few extra people onto your side. And I can do that much just by posting on Reddit.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 05:39 PM
1

Protests only work when the everyone else already agrees with the point you're making.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 04:28 PM
3

Fembots probably.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 04:10 AM
3

Whatever you say.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 12:27 AM
2

It has enough similarities that it works in this analogy. The differences aren't really relevant when it comes to determining what is and isn't "victim blaming." And if they are, feel free to point out why.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:50 PM
2

Why is that chart shaped like a penis? Am I missing a joke?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:44 PM
1

And r/anarchism is both those things rolled into one.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:40 PM
3

A controversial philosopher criticized?! Unheard of! This makes me see her in an entirely new light.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:34 PM
7

But who would build the robots?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:29 PM
1

You're making me so mad!!
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:28 PM
1

Meh, I'm okay with being insane as long as I'm capable of explaining why I'm insane. Better to be insane because you've thought things through than sane because you haven't.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:22 PM
1

Wait, so it isn't a religious tradition even though it is done mostly by people of a certain reason who tend to do it because those around them and before them have done the same which has its origins in religious rules in the past? I'm not sure you understand what a religious tradition is then. When a parent circumcises their son because "I want him to be like his father," that isn't religious tradition. When a parent circumcises their son because "I don't want him to be picked on at school," t…
/r/MensRights23/09/11 10:20 PM
2

Reminds me of anti-semitism.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:34 AM
1

Even if it were a protective measure, that wouldn't stop it from being transparent stereotyping and gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 04:30 AM
2

Or are we going to argue that historically, women have been disadvantaged to men? Isn't that what you were arguing?
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:14 AM
4

You know some men are circumcised and are quite glad about it. You know the same thing is true for women, but that doesn't mean shit. Where there are slaves, there are Uncle Toms. It's unavoidable. Also: I went to public school in a wealthy, liberal town. When the teachers and staff are consistently and deliberately attempting to change the behavior of most of the boys, but not doing the same for most girls, what would you call that? Maybe they aren't trying to make the boys specifically more fe…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:09 AM
1

What sort of tests?
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:05 AM
1

What makes you say that? Troll instincts mostly.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 01:57 AM
-1

And yet you had the time to write that whole comment...
/r/MensRights22/09/11 01:53 AM
12

Circumcision for boys is done for a number of reasons, but in general just because it is a religious tradition. That's really blatantly not true. Circumcision in America is mostly done by Christians, and they could care less about it's origins as a Jewish tradition. Circumcision for girls is done to forbid them pleasure, and if done 'right', it can achieve that goal. This part is also somewhat inaccurate. At most, you're trying to diminish sexual pleasure, not "forbid" it, and even that isn't al…
/r/MensRights22/09/11 01:42 AM
2

Different, yes, but what criteria do you use to decide that one is worse than the other?
/r/MensRights21/09/11 12:04 AM
-1

How dare he insult "they!" Some of my best friends are "they!"
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:57 PM
1

the ability to suppress remorse, regret and self loathing. if only.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:56 PM
6

For someone to NOT be a feminist, they'd have to truly believe that females are inferior. I guess you're going by that "radical notion that women are people" definition. The problem is that not even all self-described feminists accept that definition. So why should you expect the people here to accept it?
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:40 PM
2

It depends on what you mean by "rapist." Few people think that all men are rapists in the literal, forcing people to have sex with them using violence or coercion, way. But many will still claim that all men are "rapists" due to all the other "injustices" committed by them.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:38 PM
6

You don't even know what "feminism" is. Nobody in this subreddit does. I had to look up and make sure this wasn't r/feminism. That's probably even more true there.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 11:36 PM
0

However, I implore you; don't further insult the individuals sworn to protect you and give them more reason to not care about you, or mistreat you. That's a recipe for disaster. "Less pessimistic?" That is your idea of "less pessimistic." You're so pesimistic that you think the police will stop caring about you and mistreat you just because you insulted them. Unless that isn't pessimism, but realism, in which case I don't understand why you're so ready to defend those sort of people. "They'll ab…
/r/MensRights20/09/11 02:21 AM
1

GAAARGH! EX-COP MAD! EX-COP SMASH STUpID REDDIT COMMENTS!
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:48 AM
3

How about Reservoir Dogs? And 12 angry men is an obvious one.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:45 AM
0

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/in-theaters/ No movies for women? On the first page, see two movies about marine mammals, and one of them is narrated by Ryan Reynolds. There's another movie starring Taylor Lautner. On the second page, I count 3 or 4 movies with female protagonists. And not the fan-service kind, one of them is even Sarah Jessica Parker.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:40 AM
2

don't further insult the individuals sworn to protect you and give them more reason to not care about you, or mistreat you A perfect statement, spoken by a completely arrogant power-abusive pig. They are sworn to enforce laws, not protect people. I know, right? He's trying to prove to you that the police are there to help you, and the best he still thinks it's a good idea to say "Oh, and if you keep insulting my cop-friends, they'll make life hell for you." That's a really great way to bring peo…
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:17 AM
0

This is probably one of the single-most ignorant comments I've ever read on YouTub-er, Reddit. Seriously? For saying the police are there to fuck people? That is sort of the point of them, isn't it? They're there to fuck over criminals. Ideally, it would exclusively be criminals that they're fucking, but that obviously isn't the case. Even if the police do want to help you, they want to do it by fucking someone else.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 01:10 AM
-1

What do you mean? You just saw the proof. The parents are causing the sexual abuse by sexually abusing their children. If you accept the correlation, than you accept the causation.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:58 AM
2

What do you mean by "gender model?"
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:53 AM
7

Or just click on this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIpaDuDsj6E I think David Mitchell is way more sympathetic than Rainn Wilson
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:45 AM
5

whilst we need to protect civil liberties Don't say things that you don't mean.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:34 AM
2

...there's a chance that there are other differences too.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:33 AM
0

So you seem to have a problem. you can't read. Read my last post again and all we be clear I hope, but probably not see you have that problem.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 12:31 AM
2

Does Wikipedia count? Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories.[1][2] However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, l…
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:13 AM
1

Okay, I think I figured it out. You're saying that feminist who hate men are radicals and don't support the doctrine of feminism. Fair enough. But what is "the" doctrine of feminism, and why is yours more valid than the doctrine of the radicals? If one feminist says "feminism is about hating men" and another says "feminism is about equality for everyone," then how do you tell which one is right?
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:24 AM
1

Occasionally
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:13 AM
1

...was that a quadruple-negative? Do you feel like rephrasing that so I have some idea what you're saying?
/r/MensRights17/09/11 05:42 AM
7

This is a decision that seems to be harder for parents of our generation to make. My husband and I decided that we would circumcise our boys. In my experience, most boys (and in fact, most children) are not the cleanest of creatures. You can teach them to bathe, but unless you are going to supervise their showers for the first ten or so years, you really have very little hope of them all paying close attention to detail. Wow. This comment really cuts right to the root of it, doesn't it? We need …
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:29 PM
1

I'm not sure our government does.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:19 PM
1

Feminism != women Disagreeing with your conception of "true" feminism isn't calling people names, or woman-hating.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:19 PM
5

Too late. The wheels are in motion.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:15 PM
1

But there is no guarantee, based on the research you're talking about at least, that every case of transsexuality has a "genetic or physiological basis." It could be that one or more possible causes of transsexuality are purely psychological. I don't think there's any proof of that, but there's no proof that it's impossible either.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:49 AM
1

What would the reverse be? A joke about women measuring the size of their vaginas?
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:18 AM
2

Well, post over. That's really all there is to say.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:10 AM
4

It is a biological fact. It's a biological fact that there is a general trend. If you do this examination they're talking about, then it's a biological fact that you'll have a very high percentage of correctly guessing whether or not the person is a transsexual. Based on this biological fact, we can probably assume that transsexualism is likely influenced my multiple factors, with this being a major one.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:04 AM
1

If you disagree and say something that's completely reasonable, but somewhat controversial, then you'll probably be called a racist, misogynist, or rape apologist.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:58 AM
2

Maybe some gender roles were appropriate. The majority were just based on superstition and senseless tradition.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:57 AM
1

"All indoor jobs" is just obviously not true. Unless you meant something by that that I didn't understand.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:56 AM
1

Well... wait, no. Aren't they saying the opposite? "Yeah, we named our foreskin awareness group after the fact that intact people can masturbate better. You got a problem with that?"
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:51 AM
2

Does that matter?
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:47 AM
4

on AVERAGE Do you notice that word being used? This is a trend. It is not a biological fact; it is a clue that may eventually point us towards the complete set of biological facts.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:38 AM
3

I'm not disagreeing with that, but it is not the same thing as saying "transsexuality is physiological." There are physiological traits that have an influence on the likelihood of someone being transsexual. We aren't even close to the point where a doctor can look at a person's brain and say, confidently, what their "true" gender was.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:28 AM
2

I read that whole thread and now I want to throw up.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:22 AM
0

A fake feminist like you would say that.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:13 AM
0

He's talking about general trends and averages. You can't prove anything just by saying "transsexuals tend to have a brain that is more similar to the sex they weren't born as." It still allows for the possible that some transsexuals are physiologically identical to members the average member of their sex.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 01:20 AM
2

Frequently Asked Questions about the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project (CAN-FAP) and its founder, Glen Callender. Hey Glen, do you realize that ‘FAP’ is slang for ‘masturbate’? It is? Wow, what a happy coincidence! I had no idea. (/sarcasm) I love these guys. Of all the arguments against circumcision, my favorite one is that it's basically our parents forcibly making it harder for you to masturbate. I don't get a chance to use it much, for obvious reasons, but maybe these guys can help bring i…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:54 AM
1

And treated far worse.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:42 AM
1

I spend most of my time criticizing people that criticize MRAs, actually, but, on occasion, I'll criticize MRAs that I disagree with as well.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:40 AM
1

The odds of being shot by a police-man are far greater than the odds of being shot in a school-shooting. It definitely is a bad idea to put armed security personnel into some of the safest places you could possibly be. (at least concerning your chances of being shot)
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:35 AM
1

As long as you feel the same way about all forms of discrimination, then no problem.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:21 AM
2

In her older years... did she actually want them to go to jail or did her grandmother force the police to arrest them? Who cares? As the title says, this is about a scumbag justice system. It doesn't matter who told the police to arrest who; it matters that they listened.
/r/MensRights15/09/11 12:00 AM
1

Well, yeah, if you compare us to Japan.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:52 PM
-2

No, he was responding to the reductio ad absurdum with "when you think about it, why is that absurd?"
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:05 PM
3

Therefore: it's okay to refuse to allow black people in your store because they're statistically more likely to try to rob you?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:04 PM
1

I completely agree that they should be within their rights to do this, but the fact is that, according to anti-discrimination laws, they aren't.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 11:02 PM
1

If that's what you think, then what problem do you have with having sex with drunk people? She wants to have sex with me, so what's your justification for saying that she's a victim?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 10:58 PM
1

There are situations where there is no option that works out well for everyone. In this situation, you have the choice between doing something that is good for you, but potentially bad for other people, or doing something that would make your life worse. You have the option between self-sacrifice, and a sacrifice that you impose on others. I don't envy you. It sounds like a difficult choice. But if you are going to reject the notion of making a sacrifice, then the least you could do would be to …
/r/MensRights14/09/11 07:09 AM
1

To answer that, I'm going to repeat what I said in my previous comment: Like I said, you get to pick; it's up to you. I probably wouldn't pick that choice, but you're free to. If you think that your right to have anonymous sex is more important than the right of other people to not have things done to them that they wouldn't want done, then you're free to exercise that right.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 07:03 AM
3

Top comments: This is why we wait for courts Poor girl. Who is "We"? Did /r/MensRights make some kind of official judgement on this, that I'm not aware of? I read the original post and thought there was lack of evidence either way. Er... the thread in /mr doesn't look that bad. Particularly when you compare it to the original. I abstained from that other thread but I understood where the suspicion was coming from. With people lying about having cancer, was it really outlandish to cast doubt? I t…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:34 PM
1

I'm so used to reporters making up stupid new terms like "cyber-bullying" that I never would have guessed that.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:12 PM
3

Are you sure your uncle wasn't just misremembering the movie Hart's War?
/r/MensRights13/09/11 11:04 PM
1

Yes, it is still possible to rape someone after having been asked to have sex with them - there are tons of sexual activities that people don't want to experience in a sexual encounter You're telling me it's rape, because even though the person asked for it, they didn't actual want to experience that sort of activity in a sexual encounter? And you can't understand why it's think it's wrong to have sex with people when you suspect they might not want to have sex with transsexuals?
/r/MensRights13/09/11 10:40 PM
1

Okay, fine. Like I said, you get to pick; it's up to you. You've chosen the option "intentionally mislead people by omitting information that you suspect they would find important in order to avoid being potentially murdered, but not have to refrain from having sex with people that don't know you very well." I probably wouldn't pick that choice, but you're free to.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 10:35 PM
1

Right. You have 3 options: you can intentionally mislead people, you can potentially get murdered, or you can refrain from having sex with people that would probably murder you if they knew you were a transsexual. Pick whichever option you want. It's up to you. I would probably choose option 3 myself. In fact, if I thought that someone were probably a murderer, I'm not sure that I would even want to have sex with them in the first place.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 05:24 AM
3

Isn't this link actually a positive example? To get to the negative example, you'd have to click on the link to the earlier post.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 05:19 AM
3

I call that Lovecraftism. All hail the supreme unknowable monstrosities that reign over the universe.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 05:17 AM
-4

Agnostics I can take or leave. Deists, on the other hand. I could murder a deist.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 05:15 AM
1

How am I holding trans women to a different standard? If you're cisgendered, and you're in a place where you know that a large amount of people would feel violated if they discovered that they'd had sex with a cisgendered woman, than I'd consider that morally wrong as well. I do agree with you, by the way, that it shouldn't technically be your responsibility. If someone really has a problem with transexuals, then it should on them to ask the question. But nevertheless, if you know that you're po…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 04:34 AM
1

I was trying to explain to you that just because two things have the same name, "breast," that doesn't mean that they are exactly identical, and that anyone who points out otherwise is afraid of fake breasts. I wasn't saying anything about what people should have to disclose to each-other. I was just trying to get you to understand that I do consider transsexual women "women," I just understand that they are not identical in every aspect to cisgendered women.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:25 AM
2

I was trying to illustrate my point. Natural breasts and fake breasts are both "breasts," but there is a difference between the two. And pointing out that there is a difference does not make a person porn-actress-phobic.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:21 AM
-1

If you are sleeping with people while fully expecting that if you were to reveal a certain fact yourself, they would actually try to murder you, then you are misleading people.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 12:18 AM
2

Really? Because feminists are always telling me that "the patriarch hurts men too!!!"
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:23 PM
2

Of course not, even in our suburbs we cheer HS teachers on to rape even more boys, no punishment means silent approval. Where do you live?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:21 PM
5

From what I read, there's DNA evidence, and a number of the charges have actually been dropped due to how long ago this happened. So... unless you know something I don't, I have to assume you're just trolling to try and make r/mensrights look bad.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:18 PM
1

"Troll" works better I think.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:10 PM
-2

Maybe a better solution would be to carry pepper-spray, instead of habitually misleading people.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:48 PM
1

sigh. Couldn't you just have let me continue in ignorance? I would have been much happier.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:47 PM
1

All I say is that a trans woman isn't the same as someone who was born with natural women parts, and you accuse me of transphobia? A breast implant is not the same as a natural breast. A restored-foreskin is not the same thing as a natural foreskin. These are basic facts. They can't be disputed. "A" does not equal "surgical recreation of A." I have absolutely nothing against transsexuals, but that doesn't change the fact that transsexuals are different from non-transsexuals.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 07:41 PM
1

Feminism has ensured that black women are given leniency, but that black men will have to wait longer for it.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:15 AM
2

Drugs aren't wiping out the lower class. The war on drugs is. Prohibition of alcohol was the result of the same mentality. It created a class of criminals because people concerned about their families decided it was a worthy sacrifice. A sacrifice that other people would be forced to make for them.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 08:07 AM
4

BREAKING: New survey reveals that any survey that tries to quantify happiness based on a series of questions is completely devoid of merit.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:56 AM
-1

I don't know; feminism has contributed to the drug war, and to the sentences given out. Wanting to protect "children" and "families" at the expense of putting people in jail is a commonly held desire among feminists.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:44 AM
-5

Why? Because a trans woman is a man? No, because a trans woman is different from a non-trans woman.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:43 AM
1

trying to remain alive? What? Who?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:41 AM
0

Most feminists are not sexist against men Evidence? Maybe you're right, but I'd like to know for sure before I take your word for it.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:40 AM
-1

Because, after it was passed, Obama couldn't make a speech without bragging about it as his accomplishment.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:35 AM
2

so... you hate yourself?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:31 AM
2

I can't even tell who you're trying to troll.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:28 AM
-16

From her post on TwoX: it is unacceptable to be receiving death threats just because i happened to do wound makeup for halloween last year and because i posted a rage comic about victim blaming a month ago Complete lie. No death threats were made. I am the girl who was lynched for "lying" By "lynched" she means "received a few mean comments" I understand people don't know how to respond to this kind of thing and say 'Maybe you'd feel better if you had protected yourself with x, y, or z.' No. I'd…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:22 AM
4

So you come here, wait till you find something that supports your preconceptions, and then leave? Yeah, that's what a lot of people seem to do.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:18 AM
0

An anti-rape activist is trying to reduce the amount of rape in the same way as MADD was trying to reduce the amount of drunk driving. Oh god, so we really do have reason to be worried about. They're trying to reduce the amount of rape by drastically lowering the standards of evidence required for a conviction?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:17 AM
1

Sarcasm. It seems like a lot of people start out their posts here by saying something like what you said. No one goes onto r/politic or any of the other subreddits and says "I don't agree with every single thing any person happens to say here, but I hope you don't hold that against me," so why would you think you'd need to do it here?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:09 AM
2

Pssst, women having a rape fantasy doesn't mean they want to actually get raped.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 06:01 AM
1

Sex with anyone while sleeping is obviously rape. Seriously?
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:59 AM
1

I don't agree with some of the things posted here. Get the FUCK out of here. We don't want your kind.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 05:58 AM
1

...right.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 10:00 PM
1

Um, I'm actually your typical dime-a-dozen proMensRights-er. Check my comment history if you don't believe me. You'll see that my pedantic squibbling is usually a force for what could be called "good."
/r/MensRights11/09/11 09:53 PM
1

Good point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what her defense will be.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 09:35 PM
1

Well, like I said, it's not quite the same thing.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 09:34 PM
1

people who criticise the work of others without contributing a damned thing themselves... Criticism is my contribution! You're welcome to it; it comes completely free of charge. You don't even need to ask. All you have to do is say something that's wrong, and I'll be there to lend you some of my valuable assistance.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 12:57 AM
1

Hate "complainers," eh?
/r/MensRights11/09/11 12:02 AM
1

Pedophiles also have a choice of whether or not to act on their sexual impulses I think I've made it pretty clear that I agree with that. It's a preference... so it's a choice. An orientation is not No, preferring children is a preference. "Pedophile" does not mean "prefers children." It means "is attracted to children." If a pedophile chooses that they would prefer to have sex with adults, they are still a pedophile. If I'm a bisexual, and I decide that I prefer men over women, does that mean t…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 08:20 PM
1

Do we have mass censorship of anti-feminist literature and film? We have publicly-funded universities. Not quite the same thing, but it's not as different as it should be.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 08:13 PM
2

And the original video which I hadn't even seen. How did I miss this? The original video is the funniest one.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:57 PM
1

so it's irrelevant whether it's a choice or not for them. Thank you. If you had said that in the first place, instead of insisting that it wasn't a choice, then I wouldn't have had any reason to disagree with you. In the future, since it's irrelevant, leave the "homosexuals were born that way" out of your anti-pedophile arguments. Pedophiles can also get aroused by adults, they just prefer children (so there's a choice). Whether or not you prefer children is a choice. Whether or not you're attra…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:32 PM
2

In 1993, Spencer claimed that she had been under the influence of drugs (PCP and alcohol) when she opened fire, adding that the state and her attorney conspired to hide her drug test results. Both former prosecutor Charles Patrick and Spencer's attorney Michael McGlinn vehemently denied that any evidence had been hidden in her case.[3][8] At a parole hearing in 2001, Spencer claimed that her violence was a result of an abusive home life in which her father beat and sexually abused her. The parol…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:23 PM
2

Well, wait, how would a doctor know who did it?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:16 PM
6

so honestly it sounds like one mistake after another. Gee, you think? Thanks for enlightening us.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 07:10 PM
1

Yes, and I agree. I only said there was a genetic link. No, you said that homosexuals are born gay. That's what I wanted you to show me evidence for. Instead, you gave me 2 studies that say that there's a genetic predisposition. I'm still waiting for the evidence that people are born gay, but people aren't born pedophiles. But we could probably say the same thing about autism and we know those people don't actively choose to be autistic. We know that because we have additional evidence to suppor…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:52 PM
1

Thanks for pasting that here. But, just to be clear: First, and most obviously, these genes increase the risk for homosexuality, which ostensibly has decreased Darwinian fitness This mechanism, called antagonistic pleiotropy, might maintain genes that increase the risk for homosexuality You agree that this confirms what I was saying, right? That there's no guarantee that people are born gay, just that they're born with a higher chance of being gay.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:44 PM
1

I wouldn't call it elevating myself above others. More like lowering them down to my level. ...I'm proving your point, aren't I?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 06:42 PM
3

Here's a beginners mistake you should avoid making: don't try to disprove the patriarchy theory with examples of men being oppressed or treated worse than women. They would jump at the chance to explain to you that the patriarchy hurts men to (although not nearly as much as it hurts women, obviously.)
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:54 AM
1

*magic medicine. For being on your phone, pretty impressive that was the only mistake.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:50 AM
1

It's weird that everyone assumed you were talking about knucker.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:45 AM
1

Okay, there's a link. I'm not arguing that. There is, as one of those abstracts puts it, "a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality." You're previous comment stated that it is "something you're born with." A link, or a predisposition, means that your genes cause you to be born with a higher likelihood of being gay. It does not mean that you will definitely be gay. It does not necessarily mean that your orientation is determined entirely by your genes. If that were the case, then finding out…
/r/MensRights10/09/11 04:36 AM
1

Hate generalizations. Love complainers, actually.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:27 AM
3

I don't want to pay welfare taxes because I don't want kids growing up in shitholes. If I keep my money, then maybe I can put it to use at some point. If I give it to the government, then I have a guarantee that 90% will be wasted on things that do nothing to help the welfare of kids. And another portion will be wasted on things that actively harm the welfare of kids. (putting their fathers in prison, for example)
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:19 AM
2

"Pedophile" means "attracted to children," not "rapes children." Just like "heterosexual" means "attracted to the opposite gender," not "rapes the opposite gender."
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:11 AM
1

What information do you have that tells you that pedophilia is a preference, but homosexuality isn't? Obviously, pedophiles can control whether or not they have sex, but you're saying that they can control who they want to have sex with? What indication is there that that is true for pedophiles, but not heterosexuals?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:08 AM
3

You should become the moderator to replace Kloo. "I do not think the Oppression Olympics are useful or constructive" is a much better catch-phrase than "I believe there to be an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy,."
/r/MensRights10/09/11 12:01 AM
1

Yes, but not through protest. Women's strength is their ability to solicit sympathy/empathy from men. Men have no such instinct towards each other. Not when you say shit like that I don't.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 11:52 PM
1

I was just being pedantic. It's illegal, yes, but it isn't criminal. No one has even been tried in a criminal court for being polygamous. The police don't arrest people for having polygamous marriage ceremonies.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 04:48 AM
2

What about all the other girl-characters on that show? Does *every one *have to be a positive example?
/r/MensRights08/09/11 06:05 PM
1

Christ, be careful! You saying "war" just caused the Panamanian government to fall apart. And now I've said it too. There goes Ecuador.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 06:01 PM
0

Pretty sure it isn't criminal.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 05:56 PM
1

Just in America you mean?
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:40 AM
1

Everyone is oppressed, Mr Troll. It's just a matter of how much.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:33 AM
0

Yup. For instance, the moon landing was all about America wanting to prove that it had the biggest penis, so they built one and launched it to the moon.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:30 AM
0

Well, he did say "conspiracy theory," not "conspiracy theories."
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:26 AM
1

But more importantly, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#English: Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, like feminist literature,[3] and in documents written by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO),[4] but in most contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has expanded to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word.[1][2] Although this gradual change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small ac…
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:13 AM
-1

I've been known to be very hostile to "gamer girls" myself.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 11:54 PM
1

I went on to Reddit's front page to look, and to be honest, I didn't find any posts condemning either gender. Where is your experience coming from?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 10:27 PM
2

And I see highly-upvoted posts saying all kinds of shit about men too. I could make a list, but I don't think I should need to.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 10:01 PM
4

On Reddit as a whole? Hell-fucking-no. On r/MensRights? They're only reviled by an even smaller minority.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:27 PM
8

Is there a template that you people download somewhere before you make these comments? It isn't even worth responding to your comment when it's been made a thousands times already.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:26 PM
3

Oh. I thought you might have been talking about women. Carry on.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:20 PM
1

Agreed. All my life had been sucked out of me way before I got to college.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:19 PM
1

Do you remember going to public school? At the time, did it seem like they were judging you based on your intelligence, or were they judging you based on other things? Do you remember teachers taking points off for misbehaving? Or creating unfair tests that don't actually test intelligence in the slightest? Or grading based on how much work was done instead of how well? Or grading based off of how much they like the individual students? Or creating tests that include things that were never actua…
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:18 PM
1

Some anthropologists like to just make shit up that suits their assumptions and then "confirm their theories" with meager amounts of inconclusive evidence. (I speak from experience)
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:10 PM
2

Which minority are you talking about?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:06 PM
7

You can't make a rebuttal until the other person has first made an actual argument.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 09:04 PM
1

I agree with everything you wrote. In fact, when you say "You can't prove what people desire, because such things aren't bound by physical characteristics." that was basically my whole point. It doesn't matter whether or not transexuality is a physiological reality, so there's no need too insist that it is one, especially when the evidence isn't conclusive.. They deserve to be treated fairly either way. You shouldn't care that some people use the term "choice" to try to discredit transexuals. It…
/r/MensRights06/09/11 08:50 PM
2

Alanna's got things right, but ignoring that, you're probably right when you say legally and financially, but medically, it's hard to argue that women have it worse. Even with the dangers of child birth, women tend to have the longer life span.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 08:47 PM
3

All I said was that men tend to have things about as bad. You gave me list of problems that women have, and then a list that men have. What is it that you disagree with?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 10:37 AM
2

I know this wasn't your point at all, but there are a lot of virgin-birth myths.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 12:20 AM
1

The Honeymooners?
/r/MensRights06/09/11 12:11 AM
0

but I think it's important not to forget that women are still vastly disadvantaged in most 3rd world countries. In most 3rd world countries, men have it just as bad.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 12:01 AM
1

Transexuality is a physiological reality? Has that been proven?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 11:59 PM
1

Consider the "switch off all electronic devices during liftoff and landing." Even if only 10% of the devices potentially interfere, how do you tell them apart? How do you train stewardesses to make the call within seconds for hundreds of passengers? "switch of all electronic devices that might interfere" would be the better rule because it carries less restrictions, but it's not enforcable. Don't you see that this completely contradicts the idea of due process? Couldn't you just as easily say "W…
/r/MensRights05/09/11 11:56 PM
1

(So, probably black, with to many words) That's what I was going to say. In your later comment, you give, as reasons for your court orders, a list of reasons why incest may potentially be harmful. Following that, what is your opinion on due process? Do you think that a Court should have to prove that someone is guilty of a crime before infringing on their rights, or do you think they should have to prove that someone is potentially committing a crime?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 09:16 PM
8

Thought it was a troll at first. http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/k26ay/guy_has_96_custody_of_his_child_court_orders_him/c2h4dn0 But no, just an idiot.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 02:39 AM
1

The typical solution would be a social stigma, plus a court order to stop having sex when it occurs, plut punishment for not following the court order - which usually includes jail as an option. I found that sort of confusing. Are you saying you agree with that solution, or that you don't?
/r/MensRights05/09/11 12:52 AM
1

Once your beard gets full enough to completely hide your neck, it ceases to be a neck-beard. That's just a big beard.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 09:24 PM
2

Social Darwinism is when society happens to favor certain traits, and those traits end up surviving more often. Social engineering is when the government or some other entity purposely interferes with Darwinism in order to make sure that the traits they prefer are the ones that survive. It's the difference between evolution and selective breeding or Eugenics. I can see how there's some cross-over though, so maybe saying they're opposites is an exaggeration.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 09:20 PM
1

So how do you want to protect families from incest?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 09:14 PM
2

Why does that matter? If your sexual desires aren't coded directly into your DNA, then they're invalid? If homosexuality weren't part of a person's DNA, (and there isn't really much evidence to confirm that it is) it would make sense to condemn it?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:29 PM
2

So you want to "protect" my family by... putting us in jail if we do certain things with each-other? That's how you create a "protected space"? If someone in my family tries to rape me, I'd welcome the protection you're offering. If my sister says that she wants to have sex with me, and I say "sounds good," then you aren't "protecting" us by arresting her and charging her with a crime. In fact, you're literally driving my family apart, which is exactly what you were trying to prevent.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:20 PM
1

It appears that the conservatives are doing their damnedest to screw up not only your economy, but your education, environment, science, infrastructure, and just about every other social amenity which can be construed as constructive. "can be construed as constructive" != "constructive"
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:13 PM
0

Are you? You don't have any rational reason for condemning incest. You're no better than a person that hates homosexuals because God told him to.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:11 PM
3

Stop ASARiBMAaPT now!
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:04 PM
1

"Social Engineering" is I think what you meant. The opposite of Social Darwinism.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:57 PM
0

Family is special here because it's supposed to be your protected space, where you can be weak, where people help you not make wrong decisions. Where you can explore the world, and try ways to deal with it. Why don't you let me decide what my family is "supposed" to be, thanks.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:56 PM
1

Orks from Morks?
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:55 PM
-1

Bigoted fuck
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:53 PM
0

Blackmail is not force.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 07:45 PM
1

Couldn't you just look at the actual information ?
/r/MensRights03/09/11 12:04 AM
1

Even with perfect sanitation, whether or not circumcision is beneficial is completely up-in-the-air. And that's just talking medically, ignoring all of the non-medical disadvantages.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 11:13 PM
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIpaDuDsj6E There's this one too. I don't think that making jokes about rape is a bad idea, I just wish there were more of them about women. Thank God for Japan.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 10:34 PM
1

Here you go Not that it's limited to that.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 07:13 PM
2

When you weigh the benefits of circumcision against the complications that arise from doing it in a place like Zimbabwe, circumcision doesn't make any kind of sense. That's been shown countless times. There does seem to be some effect that circumcision has on AIDS, but there's no kind of consensus. In many studies, it actually seems to make you more susceptible. The complications, on the other hand, are in no way disputable. Circumcising Zimbabweans makes about as much sense as preemptively remo…
/r/MensRights02/09/11 06:34 PM
1

I was referring to the implication the the US Government purposely implemented the circumcision routine as part of some conspiracy to alter the population to suit their desires.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 06:28 PM
1

But most of the Americans that get their kids circumcised don't do it for any religious reason. That's a very small minority. In America, it's mostly a secular tradition.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 06:26 PM
1

Meh, I believe it. Probably bullshit though.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:26 AM
1

I think the origin has long since stopped mattering. Now it's just tradition.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:25 AM
1

How many men need a women to be completely smooth or else they think she's gross? That's a genuine question. I always that it was just sort of a desirable novelty. Like a piercing. Are there really a large amount of guys out there that think anything but shaven is unacceptable? That would be depressing.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:24 AM
2

I see no reason to get upset over something you couldn't control. I find that very dubious.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:11 AM
3

I thought you were right at first, but look through her comment history. Seems like she's completely on our side. Seems like you got it all wrong.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 12:57 AM
-7

Women are and always have been the most pampered members of this and nearly every society on earth. Did you miss the word "nearly?"
/r/MensRights02/09/11 12:48 AM
1

I've read your comment 3 times now and I still don't know what you're trying to say. Are you against this? For it?
/r/MensRights02/09/11 12:37 AM
1

why not have the profits be used in the national interest rather than hoarded by bankers and shareholders so they can buy more private jets? If governments were capable of reliably doing what's in the interest of the nation then I would agree with you. Also, The government doesn't tell it what decisions to make. Seeing as I'm saying that the Fed is the government, I don't see how that matters. The government doesn't tell the President what decisions to make either. If the Presidency weren't a go…
/r/MensRights02/09/11 12:22 AM
1

Any time one decides to oppose a group regardless of what they are doing, how they are doing it, or why, it is intolerance. Who said anything about "regardless of what they are doing?" We oppose feminism because of what it's doing, how they are doing it, and why.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:04 PM
2

Well, it is independent from the government. Could you tell me what definition for "independent" you're using? The way I see it, if an organization would cease to exist if the government stopped supporting it, then that organization is dependent on the government, according to the only definition for "dependent" that I know.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:02 PM
2

I... ...what?
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:46 AM
0

...you're completely right. Sorry.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:34 AM
-1

when did someone say that socialists don't understand how markets work?
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:20 AM
1

It... depends I guess.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:19 AM
1

If that is true, then the MRM is already dead. Nobody needs a new movement for hatred, intolerance, nor bigotry. Huh? when did those things come up? You don't need to be intolerant or a bigot to be anti-feminism.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:13 AM
2

The Federal Reserve is a private bank, and it doesn't own all the credit. In what way is it private? Pseudo-private maybe. If you stretch the definition enough, than even public schools can be private.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:07 AM
-1

Most socialists understand markets just fine -- they understand that a completely free and unregulated market leads to a hugely unfair society. Please answer this truthfully; how often do you go on r/anarchism? Because if you spend a lot of time there, and you still think that they understand how markets work, I don't know what to say.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 01:05 AM
1

That's why I said "that links to a reliable source."
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:58 AM
3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws9WX1rYdvU Hey! Why doesn't she have to share a cell? Weren't they going to treat her equally?
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:54 AM
4

True, but at least you can look at them and find that out.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:16 AM
1

But none of them actually say anything about that "all men are rapists" quote. There's a citation at the end of that paragraph, but it seems like it's just there to show that French's first book was whatever it was.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 12:05 AM
1

In the case of me posting a link to a wikipedia article in order to try to prove something.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:56 PM
1

In this case, what's wrong with Wikipedia is that it doesn't have source for the information it gives. Anything would have been better, because, in this case, Wikipedia doesn't even count as a source.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:50 PM
3

A Wikipedia article that gives citations for all its information. (this one doesn't)
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:45 PM
1

A Wikipedia article that links to a reliable source.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:44 PM
11

You make a good point. I saw that that the paragraph had a citatation, and I thought maybe I'd check it later, but I did just assume that it was correct. So I looked at the citation, which is this, which has this to say: In 1992 appeared The War Against Women, a study of oppression and violence of different institutions and individuals in patriarchal world. According to French, the violence has become more threatening as an answer to Feminist movement. "Men's need to dominate women may be based …
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:43 PM
12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_French I googled Marilyn French as soon as I read the image because I had never heard of her and wanted to see how well-know she actually is, and why. I happened to read this on her Wiki page: French's 1977 novel, The Women's Room, follows the lives of Mira and her friends in 1950s and 1960s America, including Val, a militant radical feminist. The novel portrays the details of the lives of women at this time and also the feminist movement of this era in the U…
/r/MensRights31/08/11 10:03 PM
1

Hi, nice to meet you.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 01:50 AM
2

"Where sexual activity is coerced, it is forced. Consent is not effective when forced. Sex without effective consent is sexual misconduct." This might work out well for some people at least. "What do you mean I raped that 13 year old girl? She was begging me to do it, which means she was coercing me, which means that it was forced, which means that I didn't consent. If anything she raped me."
/r/MensRights29/08/11 01:38 AM
1

And yet so many of them seem to be divorced...
/r/MensRights29/08/11 12:23 AM
2

You meant "can't remember a time that I ever thought men couldn't be raped," right?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 11:21 PM
-1

"Evolutionary psychology?" Why not just say "unscientific conjecture."
/r/MensRights27/08/11 11:17 PM
1

Neither of those are very apt analogies. If someone has the right to do x to you, then you do not have the right to not have x done to you. If someone has the right to shoot you with a rocket launcher, then you do not have the right to not be shot with a rocket launcher. If someone has the right to hit you, then you do not have the right to not be hit. Give me an example where someone has the right to do x to you, but you somehow still have the right to be protected from x.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 06:34 PM
1

I think this is mostly about how "progressives" think about abortion. Conservatives have their own problems.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:38 PM
1

This would be morally neutral behavior if the fetus was just a lump of cells akin to a rock, but our intuitions tell us that something is wrong there. Well, not quite. It wouldn't be murder, but if you take a death ray and destroy someone's favorite rock, that's still vandalism or destruction of property. Cats don't have person-hood, but if I kill my neighbor's, I'm still breaking the law and doing something obviously immoral. Other than that, your comment is great. It's a shame more people don'…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:36 PM
1

If parents have the right to physically discipline their child, then children don't have the right to not be hit. How can the parents sign away a right that the child never had to begin with?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:32 PM
1

Answer this hypothetical if you would: A woman goes to a doctor and asks to have an abortion a few days before she'll give birth. Would you want that allowed?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:29 PM
1

If it was about privacy, than why were 3rd trimester abortions not made legal? If it's simply a matter of privacy, then surely the age of the fetus shouldn't matter, right?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:26 PM
1

No, I'm saying that photographing people in public places isn't as absolutely legal as you're making it out to be. There are all sorts of laws in different states and countries about exactly when it's legal for you to take photographs.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:47 PM
1

Her body her choice. So I assume that you're also against making any drugs illegal, or requiring prescriptions for them, or forcing people to go to doctors for certain procedures, right? I mean, I am, but I'm skeptical that you are too.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:03 AM
2

That's a really terrible argument. What if babies had to remain connected to their mothers by umbilical chord for a few years? Would that make it okay to kill toddlers?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:01 AM
0

This goes for circumcision too. You don't get to use the "I disagree, but I don't want to force my views on them" excuse when you're talking about protecting people from harm.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 11:58 PM
1

As opposed to them deciding to demand pictures of women?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 11:51 PM
1

That's not really how the law works. It's how it should work, but in most places it isn't quite the same.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 11:49 PM
4

I got halfway through that before I read the username. Nicely done. Way better than BatmensBegins or the ones that just come here, say "you guys are sexist," and then leave.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:26 PM
1

Because obediently following directions instead of thinking for yourself is a sign of maturity.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:22 PM
1

I think you're getting your civil rights movements mixed up. The "back of the bus" thing came after slavery.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:18 PM
0

groan
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:13 PM
2

Simpson obviously has a lot of reason to play the victim, and I don't doubt for a minute that he killed her Why not? Which piece of evidence convinced you?
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:55 PM
1

Yes, you are.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:55 PM
2

Furthermore, the achievement gap for males and females in mathematics is interesting in the fact that girls typically have better grades in math classes, but tend to score lower on standardized math tests That's only interesting if you have the misconception that class grades are a measurement of how well a student understands a subject.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:44 PM
1

Right, she's obviously jokingly telling her to treat her husband like a dog. But is she doing that because she thinks the question-asker already treats her husband like a dog, or because she thinks the husband is being immature, and so she's saying "Your husband shouldn't force you to treat him like a disobedient dog."
/r/MensRights24/08/11 10:21 PM
3

You see a lot of penises in your day-to-day life?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 10:16 PM
0

Hmm, that does sound somewhat interesting. Maybe I've misjudged her... slightly.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 07:06 PM
6

Wait, what? I don't even get what that means. Were you saying I have a small penis? Also, you should really stop saying "tiny piece of skin." When you take it off of a baby, yeah, it's tiny. If you let it grow to full size, it's pretty substantial.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 07:04 PM
5

Yes. Many organs contain smaller organs within them. They could also just be called "anatomical structures," but if they have their own specific function, then "organ" is just as valid.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:58 PM
11

You read a book by Ann Coulter because it interested you?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:41 PM
2

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:40 PM
4

A large musical instrument having rows of tuned pipes sounded by compressed air, and played using one or more keyboards to produce a wide range of musical effects. The pipes are generally arranged in ranks of a particular type, each controlled by a stop, and often into larger sets linked to separate keyboards Hey, you're right! That doesn't sound like foreskin at all. Oh, wait a second... In biology and anatomy, an organ (organum, "instrument, tool", from Greek ὄργανον - organon, "organ, instrum…
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:38 PM
2

But is she being facetious towards the person who asked the question, or is she making fun of her husband? She could either be saying "That was a ridiculous question to ask," or she could be saying "that was a ridiculous thing for him to do."
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:26 PM
6

Exaggerated, ridiculous response to an asinine question. Yeah, we realize that, but why are you so sure it's satire?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 06:20 PM
1

In both studies, men watched videos of male and female same-sex intimacy while genital sensors monitored their erectile responses. So they haven't proven that some men are bi. They've proven that if you hook up sensors to a man's genitals, there's a chance they will respond to both male-on-male and female-on-female porn. I think you need to go further than that if you want to really "prove" anything. Not to say I doubt the existence of bisexual men, but like the article says: Despite her cautiou…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 06:31 PM
1

"very realistically drawn" sort of...
/r/MensRights23/08/11 06:19 PM
3

How do you explain your rationale to a newborn baby?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 05:56 PM
1

I think I missed that part of his comments.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 04:14 PM
3

Your male children would have a problem with it. They will have a problem with it while the procedure is being performed, and they may have a problem with it later as well. No, they won't be able to vocalize the words "stop it" but they'll be doing everything else in their power to show they have a problem.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 04:11 PM
3

I am cut and love my penis just the way it is. If some couples want to have there kids circumcised, why should i care. What do these two things have to do with each other? Circumcision laws aren't to protect you, they're to protect the people that would have a problem with it.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:29 AM
2

Oh. Was someone saying something to the contrary?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:22 AM
2

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has tabled its report into the Family Violence Bill. Unsurprisingly, it contains varying views from the broad collection of Senator members of the Committee. To the un-initiated, be warned that this report is more of an expression of ideology, rather than any genuine exploration of family law reform. As a result, many contributors with hardline extremist views, or otherwise entrenched beliefs, have been given a disproportional voi…
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:18 AM
1

If the students don't understand rape, then how can the teacher explain how every book they read is actually a metaphor for it?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:14 AM
1

It's pretty hard just to be a good liberal and a liberal.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:11 AM
1

Well, for invaders, the women were usually raped and sold into slavery, so that's really not much better. For modern culture, yes, there is tons of female privilege about judicial leniency. But that was not always the case. The women were raped and sold into slavery after most of the men had already been killed or enslaved.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 02:08 AM
2

Yup. Did you know that capitalism can't exist without government? If not, then won't understand anything that gets said there.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 01:49 AM
1

Except in that case you should be advocating to have marriage rescinded from heterosexuals. True, and I am doing that. I'm against gay marriage in the same way I'm against straight marriage.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 01:35 AM
1

I don't really have a solution any more than you do. I'm just saying that if you're going to outline your goals, why compromise? Why not just say "Everyone should be treated equally" and leave it at that.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 08:57 PM
1

So my choices are having my rights defined by feminists, and having my rights defined by other men? If mensrights is just about making sure that all men are treated how the average man wants, then I think I might rescind my support for it. I'm still being treated unfairly just because I have different values from other people. I don't care who those people are.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 07:21 PM
1

No, the right argument applies. You just disagree with it. If someone thinks that 14 year olds should have the right to use their own body taken away, then they're the one that has to provide an argument for that.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 07:10 PM
-4

I guess this isn't r/chlidrensrights. Good to know.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:53 PM
1

Fucking Christ, another one?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:52 PM
1

This is one reason why I will never be for gay marriage. If homosexuals want to be treated equally, I'm all for that, but they should be fighting to have everyone treated equally, not just the people that choose to get married. There's no reason that they deserve more help from the government than everyone else.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:49 PM
2

I'm still confused about what that second point means exactly. Should each gender have equal say about how they're treated, or should each person have equal say? Wouldn't the former just result in people being encouraged to abide by predefined gender roles? Also, even if each person has an equal say in what "treated equally" means, doesn't that result in all of the people with minority opinions being treated unfairly?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:44 PM
-4

Having sex with a 14 year old girl is a man's right? Not true at all. It's her right as well.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:40 PM
5

There are a lot of definitions for "normal," but "the only thing that exists" is not a very common one.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:36 AM
1

My point was that if it's a bell curve, there is no reason to think that any number on it is "incapable" of being reached.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:24 AM
1

My sister is actually completely against feminism. She thinks that women used to have it good, and they basically screwed things up for themselves by deciding that they wanted to have their own jobs and responsibilities.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 01:01 AM
1

Why would you want that?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:57 AM
1

Considering that the trend is a bell curve, and genius is some defined point on that curve, that doesn't make any sense.. Bell curves don't have any end points.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:53 AM
7

...do you think that OP is MuForceShoeLace?
/r/MensRights21/08/11 12:29 AM
3

Um, sorry, I wasn't trying to downplay anything, just making an irrelevant observation. It's good to know that the next time someone tries that "Me and my friends don't care. show me a person that got circumcised and has a problem with it," thing I can just point them your way. Don't downplay circumcision. Look at your uncut dick and think: which part of this would I be WILLING to lose? It's interesting that you say that. When I had sex-ed in public school, they covered circumcision. They kept t…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 05:00 AM
1

I already suffered most of those things, and then I learned I hadn't been circumcised, so... two sides of the same coin... or something. But, um... yeah. I think I've heard that cortisol thing before, but I didn't really get the full picture of what that means. Do you think there's truth to that thing about being less sensitive to pain for the rest of your life? If that's true, it would really show how traumatic the thing is.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:28 AM
3

Without government intervention you'd have a huge amount of low-paid working women, and a smaller amount of higher-paid working men. You have more high-paid men, but you also have more unemployed men.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 03:55 AM
1

It seems like it would be pretty impossible to verify. There are definite psychological effects in the short-term, but it doesn't seem like we have enough evidence to say if there's any affect once they're older.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 03:36 AM
-10

Silly me. You almost had me thinking you were going to do something besides use the only argument most feminists ever use to prove that women are treated worse then men: begging the question. I'm right because of course I'm right how could you even suggest that I'm not right? Didn't you even look at that information I showed you? "Interpretation?" Huh? There's only one interpretation, and it's mine.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 11:14 PM
-10

You literally deny any culture on the planet earth has women as second class citizens? No, I'm not. Which is why I said "men tend to face similar problems" and not "men always face the same problems." But thank you for giving me a specific example like I asked for. However, I think don't think it was one that proved your point. I believe in equal right for everyone according to their circumstances ... Women do have rights, but they are based on our view of their obligations in life. —Dr. Saleh a…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 10:28 PM
2

It's not the government that will want to keep a DNA database. It will be the voters that will call for it. When someone gets raped and murdered, and we find his DNA, but don't know who it belongs to, it will be the voters that will say "wouldn't it be worth giving up just a bit of privacy if it means we can put people like that behind bars?" The governments isn't going to say "forget that promise, we're going to start keeping your DNA from now on." They're going to say "Hmm? You guys don't mind…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 10:14 PM
-6

or in other cultures women ARE overtly second class citizens. That sentence was in present-tense, so I assumed you were talking about present-day. In the cultures where women have no legal standing, can't own property, are sold as property, and face genital mutilation, men tend to face very similar problems as well.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:54 PM
-3

It doesn't treat men as adults and women as children. It treats men as fathers and women as mothers.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:29 PM
2

Which cultures are you talking about, specifically, where women are second class citizens?
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:27 PM
1

Yes. We should stop dismissing the people afraid of government deception by labeling them paranoid. Well, you should stop doing that, at least. edit: also, you say you don't remember when they made that promise about social security. What happens a generation or two from now when no one remembers the promise to not keep our DNA on file?
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:23 PM
1

Do you really though? Do you think it should be legal to harm your newborn baby in other ways as well?
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:19 PM
1

Every individual should be afforded a reasonable expectation of safety Do you mean by the government?
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:17 PM
6

It's a way to dismiss a person's viewpoint without ever making any attempt to understand it.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:15 PM
4

Remember when they promised that Social Security numbers wouldn't be used as identification? Remember when they promised that the Patriot Act was just a temporary safety measure? We aren't paranoid; you're gullible. Slippery Slopes are never far-fetched when it comes to our government.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:07 PM
1

that was basically my point.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 06:31 PM
1

I have, but I don't understand why you brought Him up in response to Alanna.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 06:28 PM
0

What's your point?
/r/MensRights18/08/11 12:39 AM
0

I'm pretty sure even most non-feminist mohels are against FGM.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 12:31 AM
2

Well, I guess that's pretty reasonable. The thing about trolls is that, in general, the goal is to be as offensive as possible, while at the same time convincing as many people as possible that you aren't a troll. It's like trying to get rid of terrorists, or Communist spies. The more you do to get rid of them, the more they succeed at their mission of being disruptive and spreading hatred and/or fear.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 12:27 AM
1

...no. and security guards can't be called security guards when they're really just people hired by a TV show to pretend to stop people from fighting.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 08:15 PM
1

My only argument was that your argument was a terrible one. Even if I agreed with your opinion, I wouldn't agree with how you were trying to justify it. I don't care that you think men should be forced to pay child support. I care that you think "men should pay child support" is good enough reason for you to want to force them to.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 07:30 AM
5

Those people are security guards in the same way that Judge Judy is a government official. Getting upset about this is like getting upset about the sexism in Star Wars.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 02:48 AM
1

"X should do Y" is never sufficient reason for creating a law to force X to do Y. Try harder.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 12:55 AM
2

people of all genders should have an equal say about what 'treated equally" means, Not if they're wrong they shouldn't. Democracy is insufficient for this sort of thing.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 12:47 AM
1

I don't know; how often do adopted babies have to deal with post postpartum depression?
/r/MensRights17/08/11 12:44 AM
1

In all likelihood? No. It might be likely, but it's not an assumption that you can safely make. Maybe he does want to hear from like-minded people, but he doesn't necessarily know what they'll say when it comes to this specific topic. That's what I clicked on this submission for.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:05 AM
1

Really? Thats like Christian Bale saying that he really admires the work of Adam West. Compared to your skills, Batmens is practically a parody. You actually land blows once in a while; he runs around with his underwear over his pants and makes sound effects with his mouth. I didn't mean for this to sound as complimentary as it did...
/r/MensRights14/08/11 08:08 PM
1

I wasn't the one who downvoted you. I'm looking through the site now. If most, or even a small amount of social programs were based on this kind of evidence, libertarianism would be far less important. At least in America, 90% of the money we spend on social intervention doesn't go to evidence-based efforts. A good deal of the time it goes to things that directly contradict science and evidence. The reason libertarianism is necessary is that there's no reliable way to make sure that our governme…
/r/MensRights14/08/11 07:58 PM
6

That was an excellent reply.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:35 AM
8

By "legal equality" I assume you mean "legally enforced equality" and not "equality in the law," right?
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:15 AM
1

I got yo back, bro.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:12 AM
2

Not funny? Are you sure you got it? His stage name is Les Johnson! Les Johnson? Eh? Eh?
/r/MensRights14/08/11 04:10 AM
2

Well, when you phrase it like that it kind of ruins the joke. How about: I heard that John Bobbitt is marrying a woman who suffers from bulemia. It's a perfect match. She can't keep anything down, and he can't get anything up. No? What were John Bobbitts first words to his wife after she sliced him and he had it surgically reattached? Lorenna...that's not what I meant when I asked for a trial seperation! Still nothing? What's Bobbitt's new pickup line? "It's less filling, but tastes great!" Why …
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:43 AM
2

I've got it! You're BatmensBegins aren't you? It has to be! I've found your secret identity! I've got you! Hand over your cape and cowl and I promise won't tell the commissioner.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:32 AM
1

Just so you know for the future, I should tell you what Libertarians actually believe. They don't think that the government is unnecessary. For the most part, they think that the government is vitally necessary, but that it should be limited to protecting liberties, not taking them away when it's determined to be for the best. This is why Somalia isn't even close to a libertarian's idea of a country. If it were, then it would have a government to police the warlords and criminals.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:10 AM
2

Wait wait wait wait wait. You need a police force, and that police force must be maintained through collective agreement with all members of society?
/r/MensRights14/08/11 03:04 AM
0

But he didn't make any complaint as far as I can see.
/r/MensRights14/08/11 02:20 AM
2

Why do you think that social programs have really done that much good? Of all the variables that have changed between now and 200 years ago, why do you assume it's that one that has been by far the most influential?
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:44 PM
1

No, i didn't ask you to cut off half of my question and then answer each half of it separately, changing the meaning completely. What I actually asked was: Find me a single person saying that government is unnecessary because without it, people wouldn't cause any real problems. I don't want you to find me libertarians saying that government is unnecessary. That's not what you claimed. You claimed that libertarians "typically refuse to acknowledge the possibility of nongovernmental sources for re…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:31 PM
1

Sure.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:16 PM
1

It is typical of libertarianism to refuse to acknowledge the possibility of nongovernmental sources for real problems Completely false. Libertarian proposes that actions by private individuals, such as charity and boycotts, should be the solution to non-governmental problems. It proposes that, while these solutions may not be able to solve every problem, they will at least not cause as much harm as government action is liable to. And don't try to tell me "That's not what the libertarians I've ta…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 10:07 PM
1

He asked a question. He didn't start organizing a protest. Answering the question was the point of this submission.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:55 PM
6

For one reason or another, Uh, yeah, that's what this conversation is about. What the reason is.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:52 PM
1

Whenever people do something bad "This is proof that libertarianism can't ever work!!" Whenever the government does something bad "This is proof that we all need to work harder to try to fix the current problems in our government." Do you not see the double standard? Couldn't it just as easily be the other way around? People do something bad "This means we need to work hard to stop this from happening as much" Government does something bad "This is proof that Democracy can't ever work!!"
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:48 PM
1

Only because he said "physically" lynched.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:46 PM
4

No, they get criticized for a few minority opinions that get conflated with the entire subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:44 PM
1

Are you fucking kidding me? What you described is exactly what pahncrd was arguing against. Did you reply to the wrong person or something?
/r/MensRights13/08/11 09:43 PM
2

As far as I know, circumcision is illegal going by just about any assault or child abuse law, isn't it?
/r/MensRights12/08/11 05:47 PM
1

Janeane Garafolo is asexual? Hmm, I guess that means I can't really use that as an insult anymore.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 10:03 PM
9

Do spacial skills help you play chess?
/r/MensRights10/08/11 09:54 PM
1

Are you talking about worldwide, or just in America, or what? Obviously women have it worse in some places, and men have it worse in others.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 06:38 AM
1

I might just do that. I think the wound I got from banging my head against a wall last time is almost healed by now.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 12:25 AM
5

Furthermore, it could very easily be argued that most prostitutes, even those who entered the trade “voluntarily,” only did so because they are addicted to drugs and need money to feed their habits. And if we focus on SlutWalk’s favorite word, “consent,” are most prostitutes having joyous consensual sex with the partners of their choice? Of course not. The whole reason they demand money for sex is that they don’t really want to have sex with these sweaty lonely losers, and only “consent” to do s…
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:53 PM
3

Wait, so you understand the concepts of propaganda and brainwashing, but you can't understand how a person could be oppressed, but not be able to realize it?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:35 PM
2

The fuck? "Stop having a pissing contest over which gender has it worse, and just accept that women have it worse?" Couldn't you have ended your comment before that "just accept that women have it worse" part? How many specific injustices does it take before men finally get close to having thing just as bad overall?
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:33 PM
1

It depends completely on what you think those rights should be.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 11:24 PM
5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation More like 1900. Although, at the time, they were probably using whale-oil or whatever old-thymey lubricant they had. It turns out I wasn't even joking about the chastity belt thing. They really did put chastity belts on boys to stop them from masturbating, and circumcision was the trendy new alternative. It's really interesting how the arguments for circumcision have changed. "We need to stop peop…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:50 PM
1

Was expecting Vore. Got mostly Gore. Disappointed.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:20 PM
3

There was also a time when it was considered a good way to stop your evil, sin-filled children from masturbating. Sort of a male version of the chastity belt. It probably did an okay job of it until circumcised men discovered lotion.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:07 PM
5

They went to court, when right before final argument, he gave his lawyer the tape and played it in open court in front of her parents. If my limited legal knowledge derived from watching My Cousin Vinny is correct, then I don't think that's how it works.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:00 PM
2

Or Always Sunny.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 04:57 PM
5

"How dare he have an opinion! The nerve of that guy!" He says to a person that's just expressing their personal opinion...
/r/MensRights08/08/11 12:06 AM
4

She's saying she had a dissociative disorder where she didn't feel like she resided in her body, but only in her head. ...Wait, isn't that where we're supposed to be? I mean, the brain is there and everything.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 11:34 PM
1

Where do you think the police go when a disaster happens? They're right there with all the other people, becoming more and more violent.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 11:24 PM
1

If you don't want them to rape you, then you shouldn't have signed a contract that gives the permission to rape you.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 11:21 PM
1

That's true. If free health care were available to all who needed it, then insurance wouldn't be necessary for those people. What I'm saying is: if none of those things are available to you, then why is it the insurance companies that you demand things from?
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:25 AM
3

Yup. And that's bad. What's your point?
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:13 AM
1

If you want unconditional medical assistance, then you're probably looking for some sort of charity, or maybe some government welfare, if your country has it. If none of those options are available, that's obviously a problem, but why would the insurance companies be the ones you demand assistance from? Why not demand medical care from a charity, or from the government directly, or from the hospitals and doctors themselves? Why go to an unneeded middle-man when all you really want is health care…
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:03 AM
4

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/orleans-police-face-death-penalty-hurricane-katrina-bridge/story?id=11160077 I'm honestly flabbergasted that the example you chose to show me that government is good and necessary is the New Orleans Police Department; arguably one of the most corrupt security institutions in the country. Did you have trouble deciding whether to use them as your example, or the riot officers at Attica?
/r/MensRights07/08/11 05:00 AM
0

Every single American alive today was denied any say in the founding of their country and its basic attribute, constitution and laws.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 04:47 AM
3

I think he's right. I do have a duty to society. I don't have a duty to the American government. In fact, my obligations to society require that I oppose the government more often than support it.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 04:37 AM
2

Seems like that should be directed at the person who wrote this, not at the OP.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 04:35 AM
2

Who will deter your enemies from blowing your head off? a few thousand years of constantly evolving cultural morality for one.
/r/MensRights07/08/11 04:32 AM
3

from the comments: Nahida Autumn, I just want to say thank you a thousand times for this post. I’ve felt so uncomfortable with this on various occasions and could never articulate the reason for my discomfort. I often told myself it was presumptuous and conceited to assume this stranger was interested in me simply because he said “Hello,” regardless of the fact that it’s the case every single time. I thought I didn’t have the right to be put-off and annoyed, and that I was just being a total bit…
/r/MensRights06/08/11 10:33 PM
0

No, that's not what I mean. You payed them to do what it says in the contract you agreed to. If you wanted unconditional medical assistance, then an insurance plan isn't what you're after.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 06:28 PM
-11

Isn't it their responsibility to do what you payed them to do?
/r/MensRights06/08/11 04:36 AM
-21

Why is it the insurance company's responsibility? If they accepted everyone's claims, then they couldn't accept anyone's claims.
/r/MensRights06/08/11 02:13 AM
1

Anarchy is the ultimate form of liberalism.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:42 PM
1

It depends on what he means by "the Left." It's hard to mis-typify a group when you've barely even defined which group it is you're typifying.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:10 PM
1

But you're talking about the definition for "sex-buyers."
/r/MensRights04/08/11 09:03 PM
2

MensRights is nothing but death.. .and crime...AND THE RAGE OF A BEAST!
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:48 PM
1

What if I constantly use pornography, but never pay for it? Do I still count?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:45 PM
1

Was that a metaphor?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:36 PM
1

Speaking of, how did you manage to convert every phone in the city into a high-tec sonar device? Can you really do that with just a firmware update?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:34 PM
0

That's different because men are stronger than women. Just like all Muslims are terrorists.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:30 PM
2

I don't disagree with you; I was just commenting on how effective your argument is likely to be on people that disagree with you.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:24 PM
16

I think I'll try using this argument next time a woman brings up the gender gap. "Oh yeah? But you're forgetting all the strippers and prostitutes. That proves that women are treated fairly in the job market." I can see that working well...
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:07 PM
1

I'm not judging the person; I'm judging the procedure. I don't really like most cosmetic surgery either, but I don't think less of a person just because they have fake breasts.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:55 AM
0

There are many cultures that have body-disfigurement rituals that are voluntary rights of passage. Those that don't choose it may face some social repercussions, but they aren't forced into anything. If you want to defend the procedure, then saying "lot's of people choose to have it done" isn't a good enough. There are all sorts of things wrong with the procedure that are worthy of being attacked.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 12:59 AM
1

I've noticed this trend on Reddit. Make on okay point; have tons of people argue with you. Make a good point, and you're completely ignored by anyone that doesn't agree with you.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:55 PM
1

That's a good indication that your (female) friend really likes talking about herself. I went to a therapist like you're describing once too. It's really awkward when the "patient" or whatever isn't very talkative. A lot of uneasy staring. In fact, I've been to 2 therapists like that, one male and one female. And I've also been to a male therapist that was just as bad, but in a completely different way.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:48 PM
1

I'm not sure. It sounds like they've been trained to be the reactionary type of therapist. The kind that's basically just a very expensive sounding-board for your problems. The kind that just sort of waits for you to stop talking and then asks you "and how do you feel about that?" I've never liked that kind of therapist either, but I guess it might be unfair to call them inept. They're doing what they were taught, and, for all I know, maybe it does work for some people. It's probably better for …
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:35 PM
1

Where does that definition come from? http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation This page gives definitions from 3 medical dictionaries: the act of depriving an individual of a limb, member, or other important part. Also, the condition resulting therefrom. Disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body. Disfigurement; a major reduction or alteration of a limb or tissue, which may be intentional or accidental. None of those seem t…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:28 PM
1

I have no idea why BatmanBegins is here. If it's really just to belittle men, than he picked the most ridiculous and ineffective method he could think of.
/r/MensRights02/08/11 04:37 AM
3

Man or not, you really should know how to cook a steak.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 11:24 PM
3

What makes it medically incorrect? I didn't realize there's a medical definition for "mutilation."
/r/MensRights01/08/11 09:13 PM
1

"…[F]eminism also dares to expect more from men. Feminism expects a man to be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to his values in his actions with women - as well as other men. Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so. Feminism is a vision that expects men to go from being “just guys,” accepting whatever they might happen to do, to being just guys - capable of autonomy and authenticity, inspired by justice. That is, …
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:14 PM
2

There are terrible psychologists in both genders. Plenty of them.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:36 AM
2

"A man with a vagina is a lot less offensive to me than castration." -thingsarebad
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:21 AM
3

He left it open-to-interpretation I guess.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 11:38 PM
13

"nigger" implies that being black is in itself something bad (unless you're Chris Rock) "bitches" implies that being a woman and also a bitch is something bad.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 07:07 PM
10

It confuses me as much as the people that pay money for internet porn.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:55 PM
1

lot of people in this subreddit are more concerned with having men and women be treated the same than they are with having rights be respected. See also: almost every other civil rights movement that's ever existed
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:52 PM
40

"Maybe it's my Italian upbringing, but I think he should be beating me with a stick, not asking me for money."
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:48 PM
19

I do! It's because they read the word "bitches" and instantly assume that the person using the word is a misogynistic.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:47 PM
0

Blacks are [3] demonized by our culture, or otherwise [4] put down by it, so much so that [5] many black children have horrible self-esteem issues. These two are complete bullshit. White people are demonized as well, and white children have self-esteem issues that are just as bad. If you're going to illustrate how much better white people have it, stick to the areas where they actually have things better.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:40 PM
1

No response? Really?
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:34 PM
1

Commissioner Brodon
/r/MensRights30/07/11 10:05 PM
1

If you're talking about Harley, she didn't help kill any of the Robins, but she did help the Joker turn Tim Drake into Joker-like person by using genetic splicing. And Batman does blame himself for that. I don't know why you have such a problem with her. She's the typical submissive spouse archetype. Wouldn't she be right up your ally? Now, Poison Ivy and her female empowerment, I could see you not liking her, but why hate a woman that spends most of her time obediently obeying her boyfriend?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 09:10 PM
5

Right, like they did a hundred years ago. I guess sometime between then and now, employers forgot how supply and demand works.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 09:02 PM
1

It's like saying you are going to ban liposuction. Most of the time it is not medically necessary. But some people want it done. Trying to restrict what people can or can't do to their bodies is pointless. And wanting to put doctors in jail for complying with patients or parents wishes is terrible. They are only doing their jobs. sigh. These are the types of arguments we have to go up against. Liposuction is already illegal to perform on week-old babies, you fucking idiots. But I guess that law …
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:12 PM
1

Oh really, so you don't blame yourself for the death of one of your Robins?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 06:01 PM
1

NO ONE needs to "clean out" their foreskin. At most, you need to take half a second to pull it back and let water run over it. Unless you live in a third-world country, then "smegma" is a myth. It takes way less time to clean an uncircumcised penis than it does to even wash a single fingernail.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:52 PM
5

pay gap: Well, we can't know for sure what's causing this, but there's a good chance that it's discrimination. education gap: Well, we can't know for sure what's causing this.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:46 PM
3

You're not concerned about what "higher education" is devolving into?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:45 PM
3

This would be helpful to post on r/Judaism sometime. Although, in all likelihood, most of them would still just put their hands over their ears and start screaming about how people want to take away their rights as parents.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 05:44 PM
0

before of course :P Than you were much luckier than over most of the babies that are going to be circumcised today. Most of them are going to be wide awake, and without any pain relief. If you don't want male circumcision to be illegal, that's one thing. I don't know why you have to deny that performing painful surgery on a baby without giving it any anesthesia is a bad thing.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 02:28 AM
0

And did they give you anesthesia before having that surgery, or did they do it while you were awake, and without any pain-relief at all?
/r/MensRights30/07/11 12:49 AM
0

Right, so you are just a troll. Good job wasting my time. Mission accomplished i guess.
/r/MensRights30/07/11 12:35 AM
0

I don't understand your point. You have no problem with being forced to experience pain, as long as afterwards you forget that it happened?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 11:55 PM
0

Ah, okay. You do realize that babies feel pain as well, right? And also that it's very hard to anesthetize them, right?
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:49 PM
1

Are women's bodies--I mean the ones on the street, let's face it normal women are basically another species from porn actresses, sort of like the difference between horses and pigs--that wonderful to look at? Are porn actresses wonderful to look at? Occasionally. Normal women? Also occasionally.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:47 PM
1

Actually, taking a blade and cutting your child for no adequate reason is already illegal. This law isn't even necessary. It would be nice if we made people aware that circumcision doesn't count as some kind of a loophole to the laws that we already have, but we don't actually need to change any of our current laws. Or do you think we should make it legal for parents to purposely harm their child, as long as they consider it to be "for their own good?"
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:37 PM
0

I really hope you're just a troll.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:33 PM
4

But it's not like chlidren are treated any better themselves. They still have barely any actual rights.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 08:20 PM
1

I really have no idea. He either really hates misogynists, and is trying to insult them by comparing them to Batman, or he really hates Batman, and is trying to insult him by comparing him to misogynists.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 07:56 PM
0

Oh, okay. I guess you were basically agreeing with me.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:37 AM
1

He used a gun occasionally, but except for one or two times, he never really tried to shoot at his enemies.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:34 AM
-1

What about when the fetus is viable?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:31 PM
2

Hold on, a Music Meister reference? I thought you were a Nolan-based Batman novelty-account?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:29 PM
3

I wonder, what would your opinion be on the Joker/Harley Quinn relationship? And yes, I am stalking your comments. I'm really just intrigued by this concept of a troll/novelty account about batman being some kind of ludicrous misogynist. Who wakes up one day and says "I know what I want to do on Reddit..."
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:10 PM
8

The... the whole thing. Just stop it, everyone.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:07 PM
-1

No, it would be to assert ownership of the body inside of the mother's body. (not that I would agree with that)
/r/MensRights27/07/11 11:01 PM
3

Yeah, like that time you beat up The Penguin. He was just trying to make ends meet, maybe send his kids to school, but you wouldn't stand for that.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:59 PM
1

When you have a bunch of conflicting studies, and no definitive answer one way or the other, that is not a powerful or compelling reason to get circumcised. You can't say "The evidence is unclear" in one sentence and then say "The evidence is powerful and compelling" in the next." Like I said, there are a few unconfirmed medical benefits to circumcision. There is a possibility that it has a chance of being helpful in a few situations. Any doctor you talked to that thought that was enough reason …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:55 PM
1

Thelma and Louise?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:47 PM
5

What people pay on average due to a multitude of factors isn't even close to systematic discrimination based on race alone.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:40 PM
1

We know that in reality this is right, that by the principles of voluntary exchange this premium is justified, even if it is unfair (that's just life). Not according to that new health care bill...
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:39 PM
2

No, it's discrimination based on math.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 10:38 PM
1

Nolan Batman is a bad guy, that's true. Rha's Al Ghul: "You can't kill me." Batman: "No, but I don't have to save you either" [lets Rha's fall to his death] Uh, yes Batman, you did have to save him. Because you're fucking Batman. You're supposed to be fighting for justice, not revenge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-PShkf_50 That's how the real Batman treats people, even his enemies. (skip to 3:15) Nolan's batman probably would have taken out a machine gun and shot the guy.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:50 PM
1

Where are you getting this from? It's really not that hard to keep your penis clean. Your foreskin isn't some impenetrable seal against filth and disease. If you take as shower once every two weeks, and during that shower, you take half a second to pull back your foreskin, you're done. That's it. You aren't scrubbing a huge pile of dirt out of your penis every day. It's about as difficult as cleaning behind your ears is. edit: also, that thing about reducing cancer risk is just false. It's an ur…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 09:36 PM
2

There are a whole host of medical benefits to circumcision. No, there are one or two disputed medical benefits to circumcision. Could you give me a few examples of things that you think are medical benefits, aside from its unconfirmed use preventing STDs? For this reason I believe my son will not take care of an uncircumcised penis as is necessary. Circumcision will keep his penis clean without me causing psychological damage by literally checking his penis to see if it is clean. This is absolut…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:30 AM
3

He's socially conservative, but fiscally liberal.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:20 AM
0

I touched her breast. It bled on me.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:57 AM
2

wait, so which is the reason?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:56 AM
1

You'd go insane too if you were in Abu Ghraib.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 09:24 PM
4

Exactly! Didn't anybody watch Sin City? You're not getting rid of pedophiles; you're just turning them into disgusting yellow goblins.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:50 PM
2

Hating men would be totally justifiable if we lived in Iraq. I think you meant "understandable," not "justifiable." Justifiable implies that the men actually deserve to be hated.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 08:36 PM
1

...wait a second ....that's the Philippine Star. The Philadelphia Star's website is http://www.philadelphiastar.com/ I wonder if they're affiliated. They could save on letterheads.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 09:02 PM
1

You were labeled a liar for posting "Circumcision in Africa cuts HIV by 76%" when what you should have said was "One study shows that circumcision cuts HIV by 76%, but a lot of studies show the opposite, and I haven't bothered to actually read the specifics of the study I'm talking about. Thoughts?" To be fair, r/mensrights can be pretty heavy-handed about this sort of thing, and it seems like you weren't purposely spreading lies, so you probably didn't deserve most of these comments.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:53 PM
2

Discrimination is not okay. Using our police to force people not to discriminate under threat of legal action is also not okay. The most qualified person should get the job. Regardless of gender, race, etc. Obviously. The question is; who gets to decide that? Why should it be the government?
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:47 PM
0

Protesting Wendy Williams? Really? I mean, c'mon. It's Wendy Williams.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:45 PM
1

Hold on, do the people that created the subreddit understand the stupidity of that name? Was it created as a joke? It would be like if r/MensRights had been named r/AgainstWomensRights.
/r/MensRights23/07/11 08:37 PM
1

Too bad I missed it.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:38 AM
1

And we had a perfect amount of freedom and equality?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:14 AM
0

I sort of don't buy that.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:02 AM
1

That's it cuteman, I'm putting you on double-secret probation.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 12:01 AM
1

I guess Dr. Phil is to men what Oprah is to... white men.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:59 PM
1

what? In 1970?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:53 PM
3

I'm pretty sure he/she was talking about the women that are actually slaves.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 11:47 PM
1

Basically its a white knight show You're kind of proving my point, aren't you? No, I get what you're saying. That sounds way worse than what I was imagining. The characters being sexist is one thing; the production of the show being gender-biased is another.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 03:49 AM
1

Am I the only one that hated this show from the start? It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer as written by people from the porno industry.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:34 AM
1

Doesn't that make sense for a medieval setting?
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:33 AM
1

You should have put a comma after "sometimes."
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:29 AM
7

More likely is that they'll get the wrong idea about anarchism long before ever visiting the subreddit.
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:10 AM
1

We have pictures...
/r/MensRights16/07/11 12:01 AM
1

I took that part to mean that there are ways of doing the 2 procedures that are less painful than other ways (which is true, but apparently not what you meant).
/r/MensRights30/06/11 11:33 PM
1

Why can't we just get rid of government-sponsored marriage?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:20 PM
3

The procedures you mentioned are just two specific examples. There are types of male circumcision that are far worse than foreskin-removal, and there are types of female circumcision that are fare less drastic than clitoris-removal.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:13 PM
1

I think we need less Maher all around.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:06 PM
3

I checked out their twitter and their facebook, and it just doesn't seem like they're a "responding" sort of organization. They're really just there to spew out a constant stream of inaccurate or even completely made-up facts. If you agree with them, good. If you don't, who cares. So much for a "debate."
/r/MensRights29/06/11 12:13 AM
2

Thanks for writing this out. You basically summed up what I was screaming at my monitor while watching this. And yeah, the website is even worse, especially this whole "debate" thing. "Why are women still dying having babies?" "Why are more women than men at risk of HIV?" Well, obviously it's because God hates women. And because God is a man, this is a clear example of gender-discrimination. Their "debate-starters" are, ironically, a sure-way to absolutely silence any dissenting opinions through…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 11:43 PM
2

I was hoping someone would bring this up. I think that video is way less sexist than the one I posted.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:17 PM
5

Women are afraid for their lives every single day, whether at home or walking around, while men can be anything they want to be, and get away with anything they want to. It almost seem accurate if you imagine that we're all living in a James Bond movie.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:12 PM
1

See also: "objectification"
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:32 PM
0

You can even bleach your skin.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:28 PM
-1

You can go to the doctor and remove certain physical traits replace them with other ones.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 07:01 PM
2

what, all men? Because that's obviously not true.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:55 PM
7

According to the Department of Made-Up Statistics, (DoMUS) everyone with the username of "kleinbl00" was born with severe mental disabilities. Don't even bother arguing with me unless you can show me your entire medical history.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:53 PM
1

But what if she was lying when they asked her if she could tell the difference between a truth and a lie?
/r/MensRights02/06/11 10:14 PM
1

They work in some cases. If you can test it against a placebo, for instance.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:46 AM
3

The ideal ratio of men to women is, as determined by evolution, roughly equal. Some species have more or less men than women, but not humans; we've got an equal amount. There is no advantage to making sure more women are alive than men. And even if there were, why is more children better? There wasn't any kind of shortage.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 06:09 AM
3

I think the key part of chivalry is that it's voluntary. A man offers to give up their seat to a woman. On the Titanic, it was an enforced rule that women go before men.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 05:53 AM
5

That's exactly what I saw. It reminds me of Biblical apologetics. "Yeah, I know it seems like God summoned bears to maul a bunch of kids just for calling someone bald, but if you pay attention, you'll realize this was all completely justified and reasonable." If you start with the preconception that women have always been second-class citizens and mistreated in every way, then you can warp the facts so that women seem like second-class citizens in every single circumstance.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 02:30 AM
1

Shouldn't it be "Reg"?
/r/MensRights02/04/11 06:08 PM
1

ha, even advantages are disadvantages.
/r/MensRights08/03/11 09:47 PM
3

The thing is, I would have to rape them, then wait 10 or 15 years, then tell them they were raped and ask them if they care. I'd rather people not take the risk of raping whomever the want in the hopes that they won't care once they tell them later.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 08:07 PM
17

I drug and rape women every weekend. They don't remember, so why should they care? In fact, making that illegal would be an infringement on my rights as a rapist!
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:37 AM
3

I'm not against the law, but "saving people from embarrassment" is a terrible excuse for making something a law.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 03:49 AM
-3

doctors shouldn't have the right Why the fuck not? Show me that part in the Constitution. Laws are made to stop a person's rights from being violated. Who is that person here? The patient? He should have the right to force another person to give him medical care?
/r/MensRights15/02/11 03:43 AM
3

Nope, not in every sense of the word. In one sense of the word, "animal" means "member of the animal kingdom that is not a human."
/r/MensRights14/02/11 06:04 PM
1

Oh, no, you're still getting arrested. And then the judge is getting called, and eventually they'll get a warrant for a blood test or something. You're going to spend a night in jail no matter what, and you'll still be charged with something. It's really more of an illusion of rights.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:25 AM
1

I tried to look it up, but it's very complicated and varies so much that I really couldn't tell you. There's often a penalty for refusal, but not always. And you'll probably be beaten. Well, possibly.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 11:58 PM
5

Wow, that's a great way to describe things. In other words, it's just like any organized religion.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 09:54 PM
1

the government has, by extension, the right to make you take a breathalyzer test. Only in some states, so obviously there are a lot of people who don't agree with you.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:26 PM
1

the same thing that gives them the right to force the father to pay child support. The law. Ah, so the law is justified because it's the law. Thanks for that.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:50 AM
1

I don't have to justify not making a law; you have to justify creating one.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 04:04 AM
3

No, I do not. I don't care how intrusive the procedure is. Unless it is necessary for the health of the child, the government has no right to tell me what medical procedures I am required to have performed on him.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 02:16 AM
1

That is a very good point, probably the only one that someone has brought up in support of this law. I think that parents should be allowed to refuse any medical procedure or test, no matter how insignificant, unless it's necessary for the child's health. But if you're doing it to make sure child isn't being lied to or misled for much of his life, then I can understand it. I don't have a problem with the child's rights trumping the parents; I just have a problem with the whims of the government …
/r/MensRights13/02/11 02:14 AM
1

What is that supposed to mean?
/r/MensRights13/02/11 02:08 AM
3

Why would two parents not want a tiny bit of their child's saliva tested I don't know. That's something that the parents should answer. There's one group of people against this: feminists. Oh fuck off. I have made the reasons I'm against this clear. If you want to just put your fingers in your ears and say "lalala, only feminists have a problem with forcing parents to do this." then go ahead, but you're not being honest.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 07:08 PM
6

Sure, don't let him sign the birth certificate until he consents to a test. That's fine. If you want to deny official recognition of fatherhood until a test has been done, there's nothing wrong with that. It is a complete other thing to not let any child leave a hospital until it's DNA has been tested, despite the refusal of both parents.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:38 AM
11

That all sounds fairly reasonable. Being forced to submit to a test in order to get certain benefits from the government: fine Being forced to submit to a test in order to be allowed to participate in a completely natural and important part of life: that's a problem.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:27 AM
2

If the man doesn't want to be defrauded, then he should have the right to do a paternity test. What gives them the right to test the DNA of the child of two parents who are both completely against the test?
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:22 AM
1

What gives them the right to test the DNA of every single child born?
/r/MensRights12/02/11 12:30 AM
2

If this were a scene from Kotor, a game like that, you might have a point. But that's Dragon Age, a silly, silly game that desperately tries to be taken seriously by including all sorts of "mature" subject matter. It's not his fault that they completely failed.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 11:54 PM
1

fuck that. We have the responsibility to disobey unjust laws, not submit to them.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 09:47 PM
5

Actually, having sex with boys will scar you for life and you'll be forced to spend an hour every day at a therapist to help you deal with the grief. Didn't you realize?
/r/MensRights10/02/11 09:46 PM
2

The next biggest field is also going to be science. We're not going to suddenly say "hmm, maybe we need to give alchemy another try."
/r/MensRights10/02/11 04:49 AM
1

You want to ignore one of the most important fields there is right now just because men created it?
/r/MensRights10/02/11 03:16 AM
4

Most black men are racist. It's been statistically shown plenty of times.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 06:20 PM
3

C'mon Reddit, why is it that you can say you're playing devil's advocate, admit that you might have a blind spot to the situation, and then ask an honest question, and still be downvoted for it?
/r/MensRights06/02/11 12:40 AM
4

'LOL rapey rapey rape rape, rape survivors should just get over it!' Fuck off, they never said anything even close to that. What they said was "Lol, rapey rapey rape, we make offensive jokes all the time, and it's ridiculous that you're getting offended by this just because it has he word 'rape' in it." Rape survivors don't need to "just get over it," but if they get offended by a comic about rape, then they are the problem, not the comic.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 06:11 PM
2

At least it's just as offensive to women. Japan's a great example of what happens when you let gender roles become too important for either gender.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 05:16 AM
2

Dude, all you had to say was "anime."
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:31 AM
1

link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxAy-zZJtXI&feature=related I hope someone fires her.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:24 AM
3

Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I think you wrote that in a confusing way and no one's getting it.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:20 AM
2

No, the people they infiltrated weren't undercover. I realize the police were. You can't just say "Well, that's the world of undercover work," because no one put themselves into the world of undercover work. They were just living their life and then some undercover police decided to fuck things up for them.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:51 PM
2

They weren't in the world of undercover. They were minding their own business. If anyone but a cop did this it would be grounds for a lawsuit against him, at least a restraining order.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:14 AM
2

For the same reason they make abortion a women's rights issue. "You hate women" is way more convincing than "you have a different opinion from me."
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:13 AM
1

having sex under false pretenses. This would basically be considered rape if it weren't the police.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 08:12 AM
1

First of all, I wasn't insinuating that is what you believed. I was genuinely asking. So, you agree that the Bill of Rights are not where our rights are defined in the Constitution. Again, can you please show me where our rights are defined?
/r/MensRights23/01/11 02:33 AM
1

So without the Bill of Rights, we don't have any rights under the Constitution? I just want to be clear, is that what you're saying?
/r/MensRights22/01/11 11:27 PM
1

Find me the part in the Constitution where our exact rights are defined, without using any of the amendments. They are not defined, and the reason is that they don't have to be. The word "right" was understood to mean anything it is we wish to do. Our rights can be limited in some specific circumstances, but that does not mean that they weren't our rights to begin with.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 10:25 PM
1

I knew someone was going to say that. I almost added this to the comment in the first place. You have the right to do whatever you want. If what you want is to murder someone, than your right is infringing an another's rights and you can be stopped from doing that or punished, but that does not mean that swinging your knife around is a "privilege."
/r/MensRights22/01/11 06:54 PM
1

Zing!
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:34 PM
1

She's always been. Tyra Banks is just a ego-manica. Oprah is a sexist, and a bit of a racist too.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:33 PM
2

That's like saying a store discriminates by race by selling things at a high price. Most of the black people in the area are poor, so I guess having a product that they can't afford but most white people can makes them racist.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:32 PM
1

The government doesn't have the power to give us the "privilege" to do things. Anything that a man possibly can do is their right, and having that right taken away is always revoking a right, not revoking a "privilege."
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:29 PM
1

Then don't buy the product.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:27 PM
1

the consumer can be required to buy the product Well then that's the problem we need to fix.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:27 PM
0

If you could give me several real benefits that it would have, then I promise I would change my mind. Oh, and we're not talking about letting people lynch with impunity. We're talking about letting something go that happened half a century ago.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 12:00 AM
-1

I was really just asking your opinion. ZQMFGB had a good point. It's kind of hard to rape your wife without breaking some other law at the same time.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 11:52 PM
-1

So am I to assume that theirs a problematic shortage of faith in the justice system and that we need to spend time and a huge amount of taxpayer money in order increase faith? Considering the amount of innocent people our juries have in prison, I'm not so sure that there's any reason why our justice system needs any more faith to be put in it. If anything, it needs some serious doubt and critiquing, and, come to think of it, I guess putting a man in jail for something that only became a crime af…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:41 AM
-2

can you give me a single positive real effect that it would have on the world?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:22 AM
1

Good point, in fact I thought of that while typing the comment. I suppose the only way to rape someone without also assaulting or illegally coercing them would be to do it while they're unconscious, and I'm not really sure if it should be illegal to "rape" your sleeping spouse.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 06:40 AM
1

and can you give me a single positive effect that that would have on the world?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 06:36 AM
-1

The point of punishment is to prevent people from doing something. "But this is fantastic, Strangelove. How can it be triggered automatically?" "Well, it's remarkably simple to do that. When you merely wish to bury bombs, there is no limit to the size. After that they are connected to a gigantic complex of computers. Now then, a specific and clearly defined set of circumstances, under which the bombs are to be exploded, is programmed into a tape memory bank." "... Yes, but the... whole point of …
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:29 AM
1

So if you meet an 80-year-old man and he tells you that he was part of a lynch mob 50 years ago, you would want to bring him to court?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:19 AM
1

Calling reality disgusting doesn't make it change.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 05:17 AM
-1

Leaving a person alone who is probably going to die within the decade is always reasonable.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:49 AM
3

I'm sure plenty of people thought it was moral at the time. In fact, plenty of people still do, so obviously plenty of people did 50 years ago.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:45 AM
2

"What does rape mean" was a rhetorical question that I answered in the next sentence. I was trying to clarify that I'm talking about what consent means, not what rape means.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:44 AM
3

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:10 AM
3

But what does rape mean? "sex without consent"? Then what does consent mean? Well 50 years ago, it meant a marriage contract. That was his consent. Let's say we make a law that consent must always be given in righting. Does that mean that everyone in history who ever had sex without written permission is now a rapist? Consent is whatever it is understood to be at the time it is given. Rape should always be illegal, but rape is only rape if the current government has decided that consent wasn't g…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:09 AM
3

So all you're really saying is "if I think it's wrong, it doesn't matter what the laws were at the time"?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 03:21 AM
2

Help! I'm being oppressed! That 79-year-old man isn't being put in jail for something that happened 50 years ago!
/r/MensRights20/01/11 02:45 AM
4

At the time, agreeing to marriage counted as consent, so I disagree that she hadn't given it. By our standards she hadn't given consent, but 50 years ago she had. It's just like the underage example. At the time, 15 year olds were considered to be able to give consent, but now they're not. Using our definition, no 15 year old has ever given consent, just like, using the definition of 50 years ago, no married woman has ever denied consent. If you want to use modern definitions for consent and app…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 02:40 AM
1

things that are acted on with consent and the moral judgements of those people who get abortions would doubtfully change because of the imposition of a new law. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. If the law at one point is "children can consent to sex" and then the law later changes to "children cannot consent to sex," how is that different from what's happening here? A person could have sex with a 15 year old, than later it is declared that having sex with anyone under the age of 18 i…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:57 AM
7

Manixrock was talking about whether or not laws should apply retroactively, and that what people did at certain times in society shouldn't be held to modern standards; that what he did (whether or was wrong or not) was completely legal and even considered moral by most people at the time.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:37 AM
5

This isn't about saying that you can't rape your wife; this is about a 79-year-old man who people are trying to put in jail for something he, and a huge amount of other men, did 50 years ago. Yes, I realize that just because everyone else was doing it, that doesn't make it okay, but there needs to be a limit. When we raise the age of consent, should we put everyone in jail who's ever had sex with who we now consider underage? When we change the term limits for abortion, do we need to prosecute a…
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:14 AM
3

So when we freed the slaves, did we put every single past slave owner in jail?
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:09 AM
4

You have to agree that there needs to be some limit to when a spouse can refuse sex. Even if you don't call it rape, in some circumstances it should clearly be illegal.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:09 AM
9

missed the point
/r/MensRights20/01/11 01:07 AM
2

If my daughter were molested, I would be recommending that we change the definition of "pedophilia" in order to include people that are, by definition, not pedophiles? No, I don't think I would. And where did you get the idea that I'm recommending leniency? Maybe I am, but I never even implied that. But yeah, the law should be the same for both genders, it's just that neither gender should be called a pedophile for having sex with sexual mature people. You don't call someone incestuous when they…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 09:52 PM
2

Okay I'm really confused by your comment. All i'm saying is that pedophilia means attraction to prepubescent children, not sexually mature ones.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 09:24 PM
3

Find me a group of 20-year-olds who are "mentally mature enough to consider the implications of a sex life."
/r/MensRights19/01/11 08:28 PM
2

There's a difference between pedophilia and just sexual misconduct.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 08:26 PM
1

It didn't show up for me. Link?
/r/MensRights19/01/11 08:25 PM
1

Wikipedia's sources are his source.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 01:28 AM
2

When investigators asked Johnson why she would leave a 13-month old unattended in the bath, she replied that her son was preternaturally independent, and simply wanted to be alone. An arrest affidavit obtained by KMGH Denver also quotes Johnson as saying that she didn't want her son to grow up to be a "mamma's boy"-- which, presumably, is why she decided to let him bathe himself. Johnson is due to appear in court on Friday, where she could face a charge of child abuse resulting in death. Maybe t…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 01:22 AM
1

Manga? Are you by chance referring to the comics all drawn with a single art-style based on archetypes created 50 years ago? (I'm only exaggerating a little bit, compare the diversity of American comic art styles with Manga)
/r/MensRights13/01/11 09:29 PM
1

...don't they have the DNA?
/r/MensRights13/01/11 09:24 PM
1

Really? The art was pretty good, good action, and what were you expecting from the story? It's a 10-page PSA without any dialogue!
/r/MensRights13/01/11 09:21 PM
1

I'm loving this comic viewer. No having to deal with zooming around and panning; you just keep clicking the forward button.
/r/MensRights13/01/11 09:19 PM
-1

reddiquette? yes. Accepted? no.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 05:12 AM
1

I hate that Dairy Queen stole that symbol from the Rolling Stones.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:53 AM
2

Feel like explaining what it is that Kateweb missed?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:52 AM
1

I bet you think this is a woman too.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:48 AM
3

I would piss in his mouth.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:45 AM
1

good point, but I'm going to downvote you because of all your other retarded comments.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:44 AM
1

I looked, and I couldn't find the study that I'm thinking of. But I'll point out that there are way more university graduates then there are people still at universities.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 09:20 PM
1

i tend to see it in terms of the the left tending to be more educated I'm guessing that's why someone downvoted you. I think the statistics actually say the opposite, which makes sense. Education correlates pretty closely with wealth (way more-so than it correlates with intelligence), and wealth correlates with being on the right more than the left.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 07:07 PM
1

oh, I see what you're saying. If all you're talking about is definitions, then yeah, make em whatever you want. I was saying that the laws should be complex, I don't care how complex we make the definitions.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 07:21 AM
0

Since when does state law trump federal law?
/r/MensRights09/01/11 06:09 AM
1

Exactly. That shows that simplification and clarity shouldn't be the priority.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 04:08 AM
1

I wonder how many of us are conservatives. I know my growing up in a completely liberal environment is what led me to want to rebel against feminist teachings, so it might be a very small number.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 03:24 AM
1

Simplification and clarity can go fuck itself when it leads to an 18-year-old being put in jail for having sex with a 17-year-old
/r/MensRights09/01/11 03:18 AM
2

whore.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 03:14 AM
1

and that should be legal too.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 03:12 AM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation I think that sums it up quite nicely. Basically, once upon a time in America, cutting off part of a baby's genital's (male or female) without anesthesia to discourage them from masturbating once they were older seemed like a good idea, and even an advanced way of thinking. I've also heard rumors about it being encouraged by Jewish doctors after World War II, but I have a feeling this is mostly jus…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 10:54 PM
1

man bites dog - airs on TV, I spend 2 hours watching a great movie.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 09:44 PM
3

AKA people doing what people do.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 09:38 PM
2

People do occasionally circumcise themselves for non-medical reasons after the age of consent, but it's pretty rare. I'd guess it's mostly Jewish converts, and I've heard a few people say they got it done because that's just what they considered normal (in other words, "that's what my dad and my friends look like") There are also people who try to regrow their foreskin. I'm not sure if it's more or less people.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 09:37 PM
5

if you want someone to google it for you just ask.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 09:32 PM
1

How about gyno-dicial?
/r/MensRights05/01/11 07:13 PM
3

Sounds fair.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:35 AM
1

but Hitler... never made it to art school...
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:07 AM
1

You'd think a troll would be able to recognize an intentional misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 03:06 AM
3

Yes, turn away from the dark side.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 02:55 AM
1

This teacher has performed a public service. She taught this POS a valuable lesson he evidently never learned at home. Perhaps the next time he's told to do something by his teacher, he'll remember the new friends he made at the center for stupid kids (juvenile detention), and obey. Haha, just kidding. That was what the user Redrover posted in the article comments. I thought I'd share.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 07:23 PM
1

I don't see where he says in his comment how IQ works. If IQ is a measure of intelligence, it's a valid explanation. If IQ is a measure of education and culture only, it still works as an explanation.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 07:19 PM
1

Yes yes, that's all good, but you're ignoring the fact that it has been scientifically proven that every single person is born exactly identical to every other person. Oh, did I say it's been scientifically proven? I meant "It's the only conclusion that agrees with my anti-racist world-view, therefore it must be true, and it doesn't need any proof."
/r/MensRights01/01/11 07:18 PM
2

GEE. I WONDER.
/r/MensRights01/01/11 07:12 PM
0

I've got a theory: you're wrong.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 01:07 AM
0

Hypotheses are theories. Why don't you think that something can be both?
/r/MensRights25/12/10 11:46 PM
0

According to the Creationists, Creationism hasn't been proven false And according to geocentrists, it hasn't been proven that the earth revolves around the sun. In what way does that make geocentrism not a theory? You're conflating religion with intelligent design. Obviously, it's mostly religious fundamentalists who are creationists, but that doesn't say anything about the theory itself. There are creationists who believe that humans were created by Aliens through completely rational and physic…
/r/MensRights25/12/10 11:45 PM
1

since there would be other possible explanations for the findings. The same could be said for the Australopithecus fossils we've found. You're right, it wouldn't be definitive proof, but it would be evidence. And you're saying it's impossible to prove that it's false? Uh, haven't we done that already?
/r/MensRights25/12/10 10:08 PM
1

they're really not the same, mentally. Just because we'd like it to be true doesn't mean it is. There are clear observable differences between man and woman brains.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 09:37 PM
1

You're describing an accepted and well-supported theory. There are also unaccepted and poorly-supported theories.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 09:36 PM
1

So if I found the fossils of human dieing in a flood 4 thousands years ago and the remains of the Garden of Eden, that wouldn't prove Creationism. Yes, it's made up, but it's still falsifiable.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 09:34 PM
2

No, that makes sense. It wasn't entirely clear what you were saying in that first comment.
/r/MensRights25/12/10 09:32 PM
1

oh, nevermind then.
/r/MensRights22/12/10 09:48 PM
1

I'm wondering if r/100BlackMen/ is already full...
/r/MensRights22/12/10 09:19 PM
1

Is whiterights really racist? I assumed they just take issue with things like affirmative action or the lack of scholarships and charities for white people, despite there being those things specifically for other races - the kind of stuff MensRights complains about usually.
/r/MensRights22/12/10 09:18 PM
1

But should the personnel be personal?
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:58 PM
1

But should the personal be personal?
/r/MensRights19/12/10 08:15 PM
1

But should the political be political?
/r/MensRights19/12/10 07:07 PM
1

It's really too bad everyone here has to be on their best behavior to not give opponents any ammo.
/r/MensRights19/12/10 07:04 PM
1

Well, that kid who was selling drugs deserves to be raped too!
/r/MensRights18/12/10 05:51 AM
1

You serious? Token Black was named Token Black because he's the show's token black, not the other way around.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 04:17 AM
12

The motives behind female circumcision are almost always about decreasing or eliminating the female sex drive, while male circumcision has always been about "cleanliness". Not at all. Do your research next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision Pay particular attention to this part, which says the exact opposite of what you just did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation The reason circumcision became popular …
/r/MensRights16/12/10 02:25 AM
1

I believe that, although I'm not sure the data is entirely conclusive. (but maybe that's just because of how pro-circumcision America is) Still, not as bad as some kinds of female circumcision, like the ones that involve sewing, but probably worse than other kinds.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 02:14 AM
1

A 2004 study of veterans... 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted then 1995 study of female veterans... 90 percent had been sexually harassed. That's a decrease by 19% over 9 years. It's getting a little better, if you assume that both studies are measuring the exact same thing, which they're probably not.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 02:08 AM
1

so it's getting better? That's good...
/r/MensRights15/12/10 11:05 PM
4

Female circumcision can be worse than male circumcision. Obviously a Clitoridectomy is worse than a fore-skin removal, which is on about the same level as snipping off some of the labia, also a kind of female circumcision iirc, which isn't as bad as some of the grotesque male genital mutilations that are performed in some cultures. Fortunately for women, they don't have to worry about even the not-so-terrible circumcisions being performed on them, because the law doesn't give them an exception.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 11:03 PM
1

I feel at least a little bit of shame anytime anyone in the human race does something stupid. Maybe that's just me.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 10:49 PM
1

You can be ashamed of something and still not be responsible. I'm ashamed of people who voted for George Bush, even though I know they don't represent what I think.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 10:29 PM
1

I took a stats class. The teacher was too busy teaching formulas and common variables to even mention statistical rigor.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 10:26 PM
1

I think I misunderstood your comment.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 10:35 PM
1

I prefer r/TwoYChromosomes.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 10:24 PM
1

Oh come on guys, the last two lines were obviously a joke!
/r/MensRights13/12/10 10:12 PM
2

Even if you want to technically consider it rape, I don't think we should legally make it rape. The police shouldn't be able to say "So-and-so was arrested on allegations of raping 3 women against their consent." It should be "So-and-so was charged with failing to use birth control despite consenting to it." It should be considered breach of contract. Rape is when you force someone to have sex with you when they really don't want to have sex with you.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 10:07 PM
1

Whenever someone makes a comment like this, it's downvoted. And yet still people have to ask "I've got this crazy opinion that women aren't inferior to men. Am I going to be allowed in MensRights despite my clearly dissenting opinion?" Obviously these people have never even looked at a comments section on MensRights before.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 10:03 PM
2

I really don't think men are that bad. It's places with no resources or education that I think are bad. But until one of us decides to look it up it doesn't really matter what either of us think.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 06:39 AM
0

I just wouldn't be surprised I guess. Not because of what I think of men, but because of what I know some third-world countries to be like.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 05:11 AM
0

You doubt there are countries where a quarter of men are rapists?
/r/MensRights12/12/10 04:37 AM
0

I... I was just replacing "Glenn Beck" with "Assange." As in "I heard Julian Assange Raped and killed 2 Swedish girls in 1972."
/r/MensRights11/12/10 12:34 AM
1

I dunno man, have you ever heard Assange actually say he didn't rape those girls? At no time has he ever denied it. Makes you think...
/r/MensRights10/12/10 08:45 PM
1

Just speaking about myself, I'm hugely afraid of going into a courtroom if there's a chance I could be go to prison for 5 years. Anyone who's ever watched a documentary or news report about a criminal trial should have the same opinion. It's not fair. The rules are usually fair, but the decision usually isn't. People are sent to jail based on a single testimony, or based on a few pieces of circumstantial evidence, or a recorded phone call taken out of context. My life or someone else's would hav…
/r/MensRights10/12/10 04:27 AM
1

No, the whole joke is "I head Glenn Beck killed and raped a girl. Maybe it's not true, but he hasn't come forward to deny it." The point is that you don't just say "Glenn Beck raped a girl." You say "according to anecdotal and unreliable evidence, Glenn Beck raped a girl." You're making fun of the fact that Glenn Beck uses anecdotal and unreliable evidence all the time. You're not claiming he raped someone; you're saying "If his logic makes sense, then that means we can assume he's a rapist. Obv…
/r/MensRights09/12/10 01:32 AM
1

I understand that it's not just "prove your case or go to jail." I know that it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you lied about your claim. The problem is that your "zero risk" part is wrong. You're not being convicted by some perfectly logical machine; you're being judged by a jury of 12 selected peers. You have no idea what they're going to decide, and they make the wrong decision all the time. Unless we somehow create a system that is infallible, your chances of being convicte…
/r/MensRights08/12/10 11:01 PM
4

Yeah, that's the point. Glenn Beck likes to say "I heard this guy did this. I don't know for sure, but he hasn't come out and denied it. Makes you think." If you're the kind of retard that will watch a show like Glenn Beck and assume that all his assumptions are right, then you may as well assume that Glenn Beck is a rapist too. The key is never to outright say that he is a rapist. Just say "that's what I heard" or something. Any rational person will just say "that doesn't prove anything." You c…
/r/MensRights08/12/10 10:56 PM
0

If the penalty for falsely accusing someone of, say, stealing, were very harsh, then I'd be hesitant to accuse people of stealing, even if I saw them do it. People are wrongly convicted of things all the time. There's little chance I'm going to subject myself to be judged by a jury and put in jail if they happen to make a bad decision just because I want the criminal punished. I'd rather keep myself safe than risk trying to convict them.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:05 PM
1

I'm not saying that kids today are innocent and 'childlike'. They're not. What I'm saying is that no matter how bad they are, if you went back in time to basically any other point in history they would probably be much worse, which seems to be the opposite of what you implied.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 06:58 PM
8

He's just defending a fellow rapist. That's what I heard anyway.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 08:04 AM
1

Oh thank god.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 08:03 AM
1

How about just get rid of any naming bias entirely and call shim "parent x."
/r/MensRights08/12/10 08:02 AM
1

I assumed the first was a women because why else would you focus on the disheveled hair?
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:59 AM
1

There (usually) is no mention of black people getting cancer at Caucasian cancer awareness events. This doesn't mean those white people with cancer regard black people as not important.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:55 AM
1

I've found Reddit sometimes likes to jump on people who say "hey, you're really just making assumptions." A lot of people seem to instantly take it to mean "I'm positive that you are entirely wrong." Whatever's considered the most likely answer is instantly assumed to be the truth.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:41 AM
-4

Because legal systems aren't even close to being infallible?
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:36 AM
7

Are you kidding? Age means nothing these days? Children used to work in sweatshops and go to war in this country. You couldn't have things more backwards. If someone had proposed an age of consent at 18 fifty years ago people would have found it ridiculous. It used to be perfectly normal for kids of basically any age to take drugs and alcohol.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 07:33 AM
1

I wouldn't consider those surveys to be any kind of scientific evidence.
/r/MensRights04/12/10 05:57 AM
1

I remember when she got the job. Everyone was saying "she'll be dead in a month." and I was like "nah, stop exaggerating."
/r/MensRights03/12/10 03:00 AM
1

The only drugs you'll be doing once we're living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland destroyed by terrorists or something are radiation pills that you need to survive.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 01:22 AM
1

So you agree that you're both just talking out of your asses and neither of you knows for sure whether single-parenthood is a good or a bad situation?
/r/MensRights30/11/10 08:42 PM
1

It gets worse, my current predictions seem to suggest that if we let our guard down even slightly then 60% of all humans will immediately be transformed into flesh-eating mutants and we'll have to spend the rest of our lives fighting against the zombie hordes.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 08:38 PM
0

MENSRIGHTS!!!!
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:45 AM
1

According to my estimates, the death toll would actually be 5 billion people a year if we let our guard down. Also, I'm predicting that all government would be demolished ushering in a thousand-year age of anarchism and war.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:40 AM
1

Unless they don't, which also has a high chance of happening.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:36 AM
0

and you say that based on what, exactly?
/r/MensRights30/11/10 07:18 AM
1

You're thinking of Every Animated Children's Movie Made in the 90s and Later.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 04:07 AM
0

Did you type all this up on the spot or did you have it already prepared? I'm seriously asking; it's really well written.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 04:04 AM
2

I kind of went off because you suggested that inflicting pain on newborn babies is inconsequential because they won't remember it once they're older. So do you actually believe this?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 10:24 PM
1

Okay, but you don't have to beat yourself up about it to be against it being done on children.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 10:13 PM
3

Exactly. It's the right thing to measure, but it's also basically impossible to measure.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 08:17 AM
5

Fuck you so hard. So hard. Why don't you just practice drawing by carving into your baby's torso with knives? They won't remember the pain, so who cares! Why even hold babies? Why even give them cribs? Just let em lay on the hard ground and try to sleep. It's not like they'll remember it once they're older. Oh, it's crying? Fuck you, baby, maybe I'll think about making you feel better once your mind has developed enough that you can have lasting memories. Hey, you know those people with no long …
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:34 AM
2

It's meaningless when you try to measure it scientifically.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:25 AM
2

Thanks. That's interesting. Was condom-use taken into account I wonder?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:14 AM
2

by "hygiene," I think you mean "condom." Otherwise you're right.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:13 AM
3

No, god forbid someone try to use bullshit myths to justify genital mutilation. Oh shit, I started typing some more, but then I remembered that you're a troll. You're pretty good, man. comparing this to 2X was pretty smooth.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:09 AM
4

So you really don't understand why there should be a fuss over, for instance, the unnecessary massive amount of pain that goes into a circumcision?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:07 AM
2

I get what you're saying, but you can't put yourself in their place even a little? Imagine as a baby, your parents cut off your earlobes. You could assume that you'd be just as happy because you'd be used to it, but wouldn't you rather just be the way you are now? Especially since you can still decide to cut off your earlobes if you really want to.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:04 AM
2

This article is even worse, but your study doesn't prove anything either. "Perceived sexual satisfaction" is practically meaningless.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:02 AM
3

Is this actually true? I could be wrong, but I thought there were only a couple studies on it and they don't completely prove that.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 04:00 AM
1

I think if you asked them, most would say they do it because that's just what they consider normal.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:58 AM
0

Not sure why everyone here makes such a fuss about it. ...because I have obviously never even put the slightest but of work into looking into it.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:57 AM
2

this is how you troll, people.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:54 AM
1

If you can read this message about Julian Assange being falsely accused and arrested for rape you're too close.
/r/MensRights28/11/10 04:14 AM
1

Really? You think the less than 1% instances of complications are more harmful than penile, cervical, and rectal cancer? I'm even ignoring the other STIs here. You're also ignoring the likelihood of the harmful things you mention, and the fact that they are less likely it is that the surgery will cause complications, unlike wisdom teeth, which have a high likelihood of being harmful. So the point, then, you're making is that it's still fine to "inflict" the "removal of healthy tissue" on a child…
/r/MensRights27/11/10 07:31 PM
0

Really? That's an easy question. Wisdom teeth can be noticeably harmful - and incidentally, aren't usually removed from newborn babies - and a vestigial tale is completely pointless and abnormal genetic defect. There a distinct amount of people who would not want their foreskin removed, it is less likely to be harmful than the surgery to remove it is, and is a completely normal part of the body with an understood purpose.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 08:50 AM
1

Well how about we just let people make the decision about whether they want hair once they're older instead of violently taking it away when they're days old?
/r/MensRights27/11/10 08:37 AM
2

I don't think the poster knew I was serious. I really don't understand how this has anything to do with mensrights. Is he saying that this is feminist propaganda?
/r/MensRights27/11/10 07:51 AM
0

I think that's the opposite point to what DougDante was going for.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 02:04 AM
1

But really, why take the risk? For exactly the same reason that I would continue to speak what I wanted to even if a law were made to stop me from doing so.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:56 AM
1

That's pretty sexy. Is there a point you were trying to make?
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:53 AM
1

If we could use statistics to excuse discrimination, then every single African-American would be in jail right now.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:51 AM
2

Do you realize that most circumcisions are done for cultural reasons, not religious ones? Also, I'm sure you were joking, but banning religion probably wouldn't be a great idea.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:46 AM
1

My guess? Not a chance in hell that there is. But until we find out, we'll just assume that you're right, right?
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:44 AM
1

Great! How about I surgically remove every hair from your body permanently? You'll never be able to get them caught in anything! You'll be significantly safer if you're every near machinery. Oh, and it'll be one of the most painful things that's ever happened to you, but don't worry, you won't remember a thing after a year or so!
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:43 AM
1

Haha! It's funny because that stupid woman learned her place.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:38 AM
3

everyone would make the choice at 18 anyway Even if that were true, which is obviously isn't, would that make it okay to take the choice away?
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:30 AM
2

So do you have anything at all to add besides "Everybody does it! I'm going to completely ignore any negatives to the procedure, but c'mon guys, everyone's doing it! It's no big deal!"
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:27 AM
1

JFK says, "Of course we have time, I was already halfway done before we hit the iceberg." Then George says "I call the negroes!"
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:21 AM
6

In that women and men should both be equally never drafted.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 01:19 AM
0

...amirite?
/r/MensRights25/11/10 03:48 AM
1

Why is it impossible to use an analogy on Reddit without the response being "You can't compare the two!" What did you score on your SATs? On a question like: cat is to lion as dog is to ___ (a)elephant (b)wolf would your answer be: (c) Cats and dogs are completely different you can't equate one to the other that's not fair! Like murder, circumcision is unacceptable. Like murder, the best way to stop murder is to discourage it. Therefore, like murder, I think we should ban circumcision. If there …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:31 AM
1

How can you even deny that less nerves = the same amount of feeling? If you take off a patch of skin, then you can't feel things on that part of your skin anymore. There's no debate about that.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 07:38 AM
2

It's a bit of skin, get over it. Ah, so you know nothing about human anatomy and/or sex, is that right? Because if you did, you would know that during sex, that good feeling you get comes from the nerves in your penis. When you cut off a part of the penis that has a huge portion of these nerves, (as evidenced by the immense pain a newborn feels during and after being cut there without anesthesia) you are, surprisingly, severely limiting the feelings a man has in that area. "Oh but if he's been t…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:04 AM
1

No, I didn't do a poll, but I'm not the one claiming that barely anyone cares about being circumcised. Do you even know anything about the subject? because 'trivial' is not what someone who knows the details of the procedure would call it.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 05:04 AM
2

You don't make a list of EVERYTHING have the right to do to its child and then the rest is banned. Okay, but all we're saying is that genital mutilation should be banned, not that "only things which directly benefit the child should be allowed." A tiny minority. Who cares? So you've done a poll asking men if they like their penis or not have you? Could you show it to me? I'll ignore that "Who cares?" for now, despite how much it irks me.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:07 AM
1

I really don't want to insult you, but is English your first language? It would have been more helpful if you had cleared up the grammar in those quotes, because I'm having trouble interpreting them.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 03:03 AM
1

Ah, so you keep it in your pants. Easy access, right?. I never thought of that.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 11:04 PM
1

Isn't he trying to elicit an upvote brigade?
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:20 PM
1

I wish I owned a vagina. Where do you keep it? Obviously it should be preserved, but if you have it in a jar or something than you can't really use it, can you?
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:15 PM
2

Do you understand what "medical decisions" means? Do you think that once you have medical rights over your parents, you'll be allowed to cut off whatever part of them you want?
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:09 PM
1

If murder were legal nationally, would you be opposed to a single state outlawing it? "People can just drive out of town to murder people. This rule is almost useless!" Yeah, I know, murder is worse than circumcision, but if they're both unnaceptable, then the same logic should work for each.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:08 PM
3

Your answer is: what's their age, sex and what body part do you intend to mutilate? For the right combination, your answer is YES GO AHEAD! Best summarization of the pro-circumcision argument ever.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:05 PM
3

what is the difference between not allowing something and banning it? Also, you obviously have done next to no research on the topic if you think there are no people who mind having been circumcised. Why don't you come back to this discussion once you've put the tiniest iota of work into this?
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:03 PM
2

His point, which you completely ignored, is that some forms of female circumcision are just as "soft" as the male version.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 10:00 PM
1

yes, yes, and mostly yes.
/r/MensRights16/11/10 09:58 PM
1

It's full of puns. Just pun after pun after pun with no sign of stopping. Not as bad as Xanth though.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:36 PM
1

I think he just meant stop them from adopting.
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:07 PM
1

I thought it might have been a Phantom Tollbooth reference. Like, a map to the island of Conclusions (which you jump to when you jump to conclusions, in a delicious pun)
/r/MensRights15/11/10 09:06 PM
2

shooting rampage
/r/MensRights14/11/10 07:43 AM
1

Yes, I think it's been Godwin'd plenty.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 12:44 AM
5

It's High School all over again.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 11:56 PM
3

I've always heard it as more of a joke. 'History? It should be HERstory AMIRITE?' Then they follow it with something about how "Every great man had a mother" implying that the mothers and women are really the great ones.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 11:52 PM
2

Have you ever tried eel? Fucking delicious. I've never had snake, but I'm sure the eel's got more meat on it.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 05:41 PM
2

Yeah, I know what foreskin is. When you pull the sleeve over your hand, you're making the end of the sleeve the tip. The analogy sort of falls apart because the sleeve obviously wouldn't be the tip of your arm, but it would be the furthest point at the end of the object, and when it comes to penises, the skin is just as much your dick as the rest of it is. You could call your fist the end too, but you can't really say that one is always the end and the other never is.
/r/MensRights30/10/10 12:44 AM
5

So if I cut off your arm while you're awake, then reattach it and give you an amnesia pill, that would take away the physical trauma?
/r/MensRights29/10/10 06:34 PM
6

I looked it up, and apparently it's the end of your dick. Not the head, but the end.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 06:29 PM
1

I understand the point of this, but does it really have to be done by taking a month and calling it "Men's month?" You know what, I'm really just speaking from my resentment of black history month. There are so many different groups of people and varied and interesting histories that they have, and yet I had to spend 1/12 of almost every year of history class learning about how terrible the White Man treated black people. Other minorities? Central Americans, Irish, religious groups: completely i…
/r/MensRights29/10/10 07:41 AM
2

Fine, but I'm still calling it November.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 04:21 AM
2

Meh, maybe you're right, but I really don't want us to get to the point that we have January: LGBT month - February: Latino month - March: Jamaican month. It's just getting old.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:46 AM
1

Who downvoted this? It's just a question!
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:38 AM
1

If anyone does want a tirade against circumcision, Penn & Teller do a great job of it in an episode of Bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:34 AM
1

No, but I don't see the need to be badgered about how "this month is movember! It's the one month of the year that you need to care, so don't just ignore it." It's just like Black History month. I care about black history as much as I do any history, but I don't need a whole month full of people talking about how amazing Rosa Parks was.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:28 AM
1

you do realize that I was just applying the same "can't beat 'em, join 'em" logic to a different situation, right?
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:26 AM
4

Sure, that's fair. I just think that we don't need to give each specific group their own month or week or day in order to promote equality.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:22 AM
1

"hmmm, do I identify my son as a chosen person and make him whole and worthy of love in God's eyes, do I go completely against my religion and do the logical thing." Wow, that is a tough choice, now that I think about it. edit: If anyone does want a tirade against circumcision, Penn & Teller do a great job of it in an episode of Bullshit.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:19 AM
1

That's what I tell myself to sleep at night too.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:16 AM
1

I see your point, but when you cause a baby to scream like it's dying by cutting off a normal part of its body, you're causing it pain and you're mutilating it. You can use the "subjectively, nothing really means anything" argument whenever, but when people discuss they're usually implicitly agreeing to use language in its accepted form.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:14 AM
1

Oh my god, I feel so much brotherhood right now. http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/dwiys/mens_rights_vs_womens_rights/c13h1h7 That's my discussion that lasts for a few dozen comments with some idiot who doesn't understand that when you cut off a part of a body, you're deforming it. He starts saying that I'm calling him a monstrosity and a freak a nature. No, you idiot, I'm using a word that has an accepted meaning, and your feelings don't have anything to do with it.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:11 AM
4

Which is why we should fight feminism with misogyny.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:06 AM
1

shit just got serious, apparently.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 03:02 AM
1

No. I think it's stupid when other groups decide that it's "black month" etc. so I don't think we should get a month either.
/r/MensRights29/10/10 02:56 AM
1

That wasn't what he meant. It was more like: Muslim extremism + feminism = Muslim feminine extremism. At least, that's how I read it.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 11:03 PM
1

Yeah, cuz women are incapable of getting men to do work for them.
/r/MensRights26/10/10 10:53 PM
0

Which used to be the case, in fact. But then workers' rights came.
/r/MensRights25/10/10 03:29 AM
7

-Abraham Lincoln
/r/MensRights25/10/10 03:14 AM
2

"...in the fantasy wourld that I live in."
/r/MensRights22/10/10 09:34 PM
5

no, men have the right to have sex with whomever gives them permission to. That's not really a mensrghts issue seeing as male prostitution is also illegal.
/r/MensRights18/10/10 12:13 AM
1

Having sex with someone as small as 5 or younger probably would hurt quite a lot and possible injure them internally. Otherwise you're right.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 08:26 PM
4

You have to at least admit that no 3 year old can consent to sex, right? This is coming from almost as big a libertarian as you.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 12:20 AM
2

Okay, what if she wears a strap-on and fucks you in the ass? Is that rape?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 12:17 AM
2

I do! I've been trying to find out who changed "No man has gone before" to "No one has gone before" for years! I mean, I haven't done any research, but I've thought about it.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 12:48 AM
2

That's possible. There's also the obvious fact that, in general, women tend to be less scientifically inclined spend less time in being educated.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 12:41 AM
1

"Driving at higher speeds, according to statistics, tends to lead to more accidents, higher per accident fatality rates, and other negative effects." Yes, I agree with this. What I'm saying is that the statistics you're referring to are limited to the point that they don't even come close to saying "speeding = really dangerous" The say that under certain circumstances speeding leads to danger. Saying that it tends to be true is fine, but black people tend to be criminals, Americans tend to be st…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 08:38 PM
2

I stand by the fact that you haven't provided concrete evidence, though. I never said that no amount of evidence would prove speeding dangerous; what I said was that you have way too little to assert that. You've shown that I'm not making a straw man. "speeding is dangerous by almost all metrics." That's exactly the position I have a problem with and have been arguing against. You've pointed out certain factors by which speeding endangers you, and certain studies that suggest it is dangerous, bu…
/r/MensRights12/10/10 05:35 AM
2

The point I've been trying to make is that speeding is a ridiculously general word. You can't just prove with a few points of data that "speeding = unsafe". It doesn't matter how concrete the evidence is, because it's not as simple as your making it out to be. There are infinite different circumstances to consider. "We could go on and on about second order effects" They aren't second order effects. Thinking that the foremost effect of posted speed limits and enforcing them with police and fines …
/r/MensRights12/10/10 04:41 AM
2

but there have been some people who became rich due to their own ingenuity, even if it's just a few. You can't deny that, can you?
/r/MensRights12/10/10 12:28 AM
0

Possibly because she's starving, naked, and from what you say, I assumed chained to a wall in the kitchen. Are you sure she's not screaming bloody murder no matter what you say?
/r/MensRights11/10/10 11:37 PM
2

It does show that the male body is less offensive then the female to the general public, but that's not really the game's fault.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 11:34 PM
1

I wasn't trying to summarize the holocaust in a couple sentences of a sarcastic comment. It was an analogy. You can't use crime-rates as justification for your assumptions unless you know that the system is mostly accurate. There are gallons (yes gallons) of evidence suggesting that our justice system is entirely prejudiced, and even if it weren't, there are so many other factors to consider before you can safely conclude that race is the culprit.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 10:32 PM
3

you started out by saying that "Speeding show a disregard for the safety of others". That's a bold statement. How much exactly does speed increase the chance of blowouts and the like? I could just as easily say that going at the speed limit is dangerous because it makes other drivers mad and leads to them making dangerous time-saving maneuvers. Speeding does make things more dangerous, but by how much? If you can't prove how much worse it is then, say, driving while occasionally glancing at your…
/r/MensRights11/10/10 10:27 PM
0

so you require telepathy to be able to discern the most obvious information? I wonder how many people would get it if I made a Star Trek joke...
/r/MensRights11/10/10 10:01 PM
2

and what hard work did the guy who invented light-bulbs do? Actually, that's a pretty bad example considering what happened between him and Tesla, but you get my point, right?
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:59 PM
1

Again, you're generalizing. I'll grant you that almost all lawyers are lying thieves, but there are some that are completely honest and only take on cases to defend the innocent or correct an actual injustice. There are lawyers that work for that Innocence Alliance (I think that's its name), an organization that tries get innocent people out of jail after they've obviously been wrongfully convicted. Granted, it's harder to get rich by doing that, but that's not what your comment claims.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:57 PM
1

a character that never stepped on the cracks, if I'm recalling correctly.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:40 PM
1

vagitocracy
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:34 PM
4

Could anyone who disagrees with this commenter please consider making a comment to refute some of his claims? Just downvoting him doesn't add anything to the issue. If you're so sure of your stance, you should be able to easily explain why he's wrong.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:32 PM
1

As a civilization, I think America needs to adopt the social policy of Rationalism. It would really cut down on these things by increasing our... hold on, let me check. brb
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:29 PM
2

You didn't say anything about speeding on a long straight-aways that was, according to the cop, empty in front of him. You have to take loads of factors into account. What are the chances of a solid object moving in front of the car? How far forward and to the sides of me can I see? If it's far enough, you'll have plenty of time to stop for anything that happens. Speeding, for the most part, is reckless when it's done on windy roads or near pedestrians, on badly lit small roads, next to a school…
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:27 PM
1

come back and teach reddit, and me what it is. too lazy to google. waiting for mind-to-text input.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:19 PM
1

Like the male staff of a prison would use irresponsibly their power over imprisoned women to fulfill their sexual desires! How could you even imply that?! And women-on-women rape? That's just silly, get the fuck outta here with that.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:18 PM
2

Mr Hilter circa 1940: I like to call it realistic, not racist. Just look at the statistics: there are more Jews imprisoned than any other race!
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:16 PM
3

It did seem like it, but part of that may be the cop. He seems like he goes into a scripted routine whenever he stops someone. step 1: ask country step 2: call them "country they're from" boy step 3: butsex When you never challenge someone's methods, they tend to stick to a single routine.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:10 PM
1

threatened a human with forced rape. fixed that for ya.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:07 PM
3

That man is in full douchebag mode all the time.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:05 PM
5

That's the best he could do? He could've gone with Nazi or eurotrash or any number of racial slurs! And then he goes straight to but-rape. For a speeding ticket?! Yeah, I'm sure traffic court is a giant orgy for convicted felons.
/r/MensRights11/10/10 09:05 PM
1

could you just... not be so... just take it easy, okay?
/r/MensRights11/10/10 08:59 PM
1

Plenty of people justify the death penalty because of its power as a deterrent; killing is used to convince others not to kill. Likewise for war, you're right that the actual purpose is almost never an attempt at education, but making sure a society learns its lesson is often a justification that is used. I've heard people say that bombing Japan was necessary because it taught the country to think twice about its warring ways.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:10 AM
1

I'd believe that, but that seems like a really weird thing to lace. Can you imagine a man covertly putting drugs between two pringles than giving it to a woman? I guess he didn't really do any drugging, but it would be a weird thing to accuse someone of.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:59 AM
1

war? death penalty?
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:41 AM
1

men enjoy generalizations.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:40 AM
4

Look, it's completely normal for a woman to breastfeed her child. That doesn't make her a sexual abuser! Yeah, I didn't even read this.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:37 AM
1

How about we just reserve a spot on each page to be filled with a random current charity post from any section. It would be like what Digg does with their ads that look like articles, except not evil.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:36 AM
2

I'm of the view that most bullying is caused by forcing huge groups of children to spend 7-8 hours a day together while controlling most of what they do, causing them to want yearn for control, with their peers being their easiest targets. So basically, expel them; they're usually literally begging for it.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:32 AM
2

I hate the people who shout "remain in your seats" and the like. If I thought I were going to die, I wouldn't want the last thing I hear to be the panicked attempts to stay in control of an authority figure.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:24 AM
2

How about we just line up based on # of friends and loved ones? Bit of a loner? Fuck you, off to the back.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:17 AM
-1

what does that have to do with what Dr. L said? He/she was just saying, I believe, that we can't expect completely equal treatment of the sexes because the sexes are inherently different. At best we can make sure that both genders are treated fairly and as individuals. Also, I wish you could have written a letter to the producers of The Next Generation. Boldy going where no "man" has gone before already meant "human", not "male human". Changing the word to "one" didn't make things gender neutral…
/r/MensRights10/10/10 03:14 AM
1

I've petitioned the Universal spirits to see it in their hearts to abolish all death and suffering. They haven't responded yet, but I really hope this works.
/r/MensRights08/10/10 08:07 PM
1

You're probably right, but if nothing else, I'm sure an ancient 30-year-old would have really bad teeth, and maybe other age related problems.
/r/MensRights07/10/10 07:14 PM
1

You could have left out everything except that last line. It pretty much encompasses what is wrong with this article and the line of thinking it represents.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 11:53 PM
2

Not that you're wrong, but we really need to be careful that /r/MensRights doesn't turn into /r/FuckYouMom.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 11:51 PM
1

Mostly this just makes me mad about helmet laws, and the people who will just stop cycling when an unjust law is made instead of standing up for personal choice.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 11:46 PM
1

they can be confusing.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:40 PM
1

Every race is exactly identical, all differences are completely aesthetic, so you can't compare the two. Genetic biologists who think environment alters a population, sorry, but you're wrong. We've determined that that line of thinking is racist, and therefore wrong.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:38 PM
1

I also don't think there should be anything illegal with an insurance company charging whatever they want, based on whatever properties they want. Insurance is all about using general statistics to determine a person's risk factor. If you don't a company using gender to determine your risk, don't buy insurance from them. It's your money, no one's forcing you to give it to a discriminatory organization. At the same time, the law is perfectly clear about gender discrimination, and keeping this leg…
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:33 PM
1

worth asking? I'd like to know what evidence she looked at. The way she says "evil masterminds drug lords" make me think the "evidence" came from movies like Lethal Weapon 2.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:17 PM
4

I like the bars for "sexual". At least some of the stereotypes are correct. Also, doesn't the difference in "neglect" likely have a lot to do with the number of single mothers vs. fathers? If there are two parents, neglect would usually have to be mutual.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:14 PM
2

ya think?
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:12 PM
1

to be fair, women get charged for this sort of thing too . It might be a more appropriate submission if you contrasted this case to another in which a woman is treated differently, although you'd have a point if you said that this sort of case usually doesn't go forward when it's made against a woman.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:10 PM
1

Neither of the main parties sees true gender equality as an important issue. If you want to vote based on that alone, you should completely ignore the Republicans and Democrats. You're choosing between "couldn't give a shit about equality" and "outlawing abortion is anti-woman, a woman's body, and anyone inside it, is her feminist-right to control.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:06 PM
1

Fine, but that doesn't mean what I said is wrong. A 30 year old living a long time ago would probably be much less healthy, and not the average idea of beauty. Even so, none of this has to do with men being attracted to teenagers. We can be attracted to all sorts of things at once.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 08:36 PM
1

how about the fact that girls have evolved to be ready to give birth at the age of 10-15, and men have been following this mold for millennium.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 07:44 PM
1

...but It's so obviously natural to be attracted to teenagers, too. For thousands of years giving birth and having sex immediately after puberty has been completely normal. That doesn't make it right, obviously, but you can't act like we're naturally inclined to only like older women. 3 thousand years ago being thirty-years-old usually meant you were close to dieing. The average life-expectancy was pretty close to that.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 07:42 PM
0

Yeah, you have to be one of those things. An apathetic hetero is still a hetero.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 06:20 AM
2

yeah, i think i agree with all that. You kind of went off on a rant there; all i as saying was that you, like many women, don't think Congress should have a forced gender ratio. The OP wasn't really directing this at you, but if you understood this and were just giving your opinion anyway, then don't mind me.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 09:44 PM
1

really? You haven't? I guess I'm just weird then.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 04:19 PM
1

"Amber stated she was sorry for slapping Gary during the season, and revealed that they are back together and that she may be pregnant again." in that order, obviously.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 04:12 PM
1

Not to shit on your opinion, which I think is well-thought-out, but feminists are, I think, who this post is countering, not just females in generals.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 03:57 PM
2

Yeah, and getting raped by a woman would be hot too, but not if she were ugly.
/r/MensRights03/10/10 03:41 PM
19

That two-faced bastard.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:16 PM
5

um, or a cop
/r/MensRights27/09/10 06:12 AM
8

vary
/r/MensRights27/09/10 06:10 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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