TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

admiralpingu Archive

View 1 post and 78 comments by admiralpingu 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)
13

Relax, it's only an informal idiomatic phrase. Don't get your knickers in a twist about it.
/r/MensRights23/01/21 06:02 PM
53

It's a shame progressive and humane treatment of prisoners is targeted at the fairer sex alone. Maybe if we treated men with compassion and sensitivity, as human beings, we'd see real progress in the justice system and crime in general. These improvements should be celebrated if they work, and we should work to expand humane justice to men as well.
/r/MensRights23/01/21 01:30 PM
1

in general though men are treated harsher As I said, this is a wide and much disputed claim. It largely depends on how you analyse the problem and where you draw the line. There's too many contextual factors to take into account for a clear answer. If you want to target the real issues in the criminal justice system, the line is directly correlative with economic background, far more so than race, gender, or anything else. It's best to start with the real core issue of economic disenfranchisemen…
/r/MensRights12/01/21 06:25 PM
1

I disagree that just because someone is mentally ill they are allowed to kill someone else. We're not in disagreement about that. I never said that mentally ill people should be allowed to kill people. if the criminal is concious Babies are conscious but we wouldn't say they are in control of or responsible for their actions. Consciousness is not equated to agency. they should be punished accordingly Generally mentally ill criminals are still punished, only the focus is putting them in a mental …
/r/MensRights12/01/21 03:52 PM
0

Consider the nuance of the matter, and what is being said against what you choose to interpret. I am obviously not defending her crimes. I am attacking the death penalty and how it treats mentally ill or vulnerable people in society. It's your opinion that someone deserves to be put to death. I disagree, especially when that person is severely mentally unwell and has no concept of their actions. Such a person cannot be held to be a responsible agent in the eyes of the law.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:35 PM
0

This sub is pathetic and a stain on legitimate men's rights issues.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:32 PM
3

Legally it does apply to males, but all too often the penalty goes ahead anyway. The majority of offenders are male, and the prosecution want to convict. It's inevitable that any injustices look skewed towards males. The real issue is that the system is inherently geared towards trying to convict the weakest and most vulnerable people in society.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:11 PM
2

This sub used to be pretty good. Now they will just downvote you when you state facts. This issue is too complex to be put into a sentence, so they'll read a headline, be outraged and then blame women for an issue that goes beyond gender.
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:11 PM
-15

Thank God it was blocked. She was a severely mentally ill woman, too ill under US law to be legally put to death. This is a win for justice. Many other people on death row (mostly men) have not been able to have their death penalty prevented. Many of these people were innocent, mistried or mentally ill. Capital punishment is callous and barbaric. It overwhelmingly targets the most vulnerable in society and has no place in advanced liberal democracies. Edit: I'm being downvoted for saying the sta…
/r/MensRights12/01/21 01:05 PM
3

Why should someone who lied about rape get a harsher sentence than someone who actually commits rape? Do you not think that is bizarrely disproportionate? A rape sentence in the U.K. is 6 years (edit: apologies, this is a starting point for sentencing - max is life). Criminal fraud and misrepresentation is expectedly lower. What legal and moral reasoning is there for such a disproportionate response? Anonymity is also a crucial factor in having victims come forward, as many would likely not come…
/r/MensRights14/10/20 06:50 AM
8

I worry some will read this headline and decide that women have an easier life without analysing the results properly here. We introduced a novel and simplified way of tracking gender inequality that focuses on measures of basic well being (healthy lifespan, pre-tertiary education, and life satisfaction) and that avoids measures based on more complex social, political, or cultural assumptions or biases. and Countries with very high levels of human development are closest to gender parity, and de…
/r/MensRights30/09/20 01:38 PM
1

Do you mean listed as rape under law? With evidence provided to prove listing sexual assault by penetration as more harmful than if it were denoted as rape, then yes. However there is no substantive legal argument for changing the law when both offences carry the same penalty, so it's not worth a discussion of. It doesn't really matter what I think, I was only pointing out your lack of legal knowledge.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 01:33 PM
1

Female on male rape should still be called rape Call it what you want, it's only semantics. The actual effect in law is that sexual assault by penetration is not lesser. It carries an identical maximum sentence as rape. sexual assault You keep saying 'sexual assault', but if sexual assault was regarded as rape, then acts that fall under section 3 such as inappropriate touching would be classed as rape. This is obviously not a beneficial outcome.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 01:22 PM
1

Section 3 is sexual assault, not sexual assault by penetration (section 2). You're purposefully misidentifying the law here. Female on male "rape" (as in penetrative sex) would be a section 2 offence and the sentence would be under the same maximum as a section 1. Female on male rape is not usually charged under section 3. This is false. Section 3 is in regards to strictly non-penetrative sexual assault.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 01:01 PM
0

It does. I suggest you read up on the laws - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-2-sexual-offences-act-2003-principal-offences-and Rape s.1 penalty: Rape is indictable only and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Sexual assault by penetration s.2 penalty: The offence is indictable only with maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 12:50 PM
1

Sexual assault by penetration carries the same maximum sentence as rape.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 11:23 AM
1

You don't know the law just because you have encountered one Act of Parliament. You're espousing incorrect legal claims, demonstrating an inability to understand or research the relevant law.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 11:17 AM
1

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/sexual-offences 'A rape is when a person uses their penis without consent to penetrate the vagina, mouth, or anus of another person. Legally, a person without a penis cannot commit rape'. A female may be charged with rape as an accessory, but the black letter of the law legally requires rape to be an act involving a male with a penis. What has the 1989 Children Act got to do with a statutory rape charge?
/r/MensRights26/09/20 11:13 AM
1

That’s a factor in sentencing. Also many other logical considerations are factors: the nature of the act (how violent was it?), the effect on the victim, the character of the defendant, risk of reoffending and so on.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:44 AM
1

If a judge feels the act carries a maximum sentence, they will do so whatever the penetration is with, dildo or otherwise. I was just explaining the reasoning as to how or why a lower sentence may be administered.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:22 AM
1

Sentences will vary, as assault by penetration includes e.g. sexually forcing any object (say a toothbrush) into another person’s body (say mouth) in a sexual manner. Such an act would deservedly carry a lesser sentence than the same act done with a penis. A judge would decide such sentencing based on numerous factors on a guilty verdict or plea.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:19 AM
1

In the U.K. a s.2 sexual assault by penetration carries the same maximum sentence as for a s.1 rape offence (Sexual Offences Act 2003).
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:09 AM
1

It carries the same maximum sentence as for rape.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:08 AM
0

That’s not true. Women can be charged with a s.2 offence of assault by penetration which carries the same maximum sentence as a rape, but a s.1 rape offence requires penetration by penis. The law is quite clear, but you don’t know it.
/r/MensRights26/09/20 06:07 AM
1

For the sake of inclusivity, openness and to allow blanaced contribution to a dialogue, I certainly hope not.
/r/MensRights25/06/20 05:21 PM
2

I wholeheartedly agree. I support women’s rights but not feminism.
/r/MensRights22/06/20 07:41 PM
1

Don’t worry, I manage fine.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 05:28 PM
14

I don’t let the loudest voice speak for everyone. I’ve been chastised by many feminists but I won’t let that stop me from trying to improve things. If I can help 5 people understand my point of view that’s 5 more people that can help move things forward .
/r/MensRights14/06/20 05:17 PM
11

We should work together. We need to recognise that permanent change won’t happen unless everyone is onboard. A lot of feminists I talk to do believe in men’s rights issues. Locking in ideologically doesn’t help progress the situation. We have to pick and choose our battles I suppose. Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered building bridges with that specific community; ‘you lie with dogs you get fleas’ as the saying goes...
/r/MensRights14/06/20 05:07 PM
1

So what you are saying is that your faith is better than my faith. Not the faith, but where it is placed. As for next to no aptitude for legal understanding, you're entitled to your view on that, and im not going to dox myself, but all i can say on that is oh the irony... You don't seem to, that's all. It's your prerogative how you present yourself, and I understand if you don't want to dox yourself. Other than your faith it is very clear throughout this that you have absolutely nothing to back …
/r/MensRights30/05/20 11:57 AM
1

you have decided that the facts were like because the court has ruled in a particular way. In other words their decision is right because it is their decision. I didn't decide it. I trust that the courts have better expertise, access to facts and can weigh in on the matter better than you. As such I trust their decisions as opposed to a random redditor who displays next to no aptitude for legal understanding. a tautology I don't think this word means what you think it does. I think you're trying…
/r/MensRights30/05/20 09:11 AM
1

Or are you spouting off appeals to authority bullshit, which is entirely what it sounds like. The English court system is built on precedent. It is literally appeals to authority. Forgive me if I'm not convinced of it in light of the fact that the defence only seems to have come to light after a feminist group got involved. The defence has been around for a very long time indeed, since the Homicide Act 1957 in fact. Following a legal development in 2015 the law adjusted and the case was reopened…
/r/MensRights29/05/20 07:32 PM
1

Her getting the inheritance is a matter for the civil courts under intestacy rules or under the will of the bereaved and is not a penal matter for criminal courts. Had she been found guilty of murder she would not have been entitled to the estate. You can't be found guilty of murder and inherit the victim's estate precisely in order to remove incentive to kill. If my boss is an asshole and after 10 years of working under them I show up at work and kill them, do I own the company after? No, for t…
/r/MensRights29/05/20 07:22 PM
-6

There is no amount of "emotional abuse" that justifies killing someone AFTER they have left you, and YOU have put yourself into their presence, and not only that gone equipped for the crime. We don't do mob trials in England. The facts of the case and the appeals procedure this particular case followed was in line with the law and was held to a very stringent standard. You don't know the facts so don't claim to understand the crime. Aside from the fact that there is absolutely no ethical justifi…
/r/MensRights29/05/20 07:06 PM
1

Absolutely. It just means we have to twice as careful unfortunately.
/r/MensRights29/05/20 04:55 PM
-8

She wasn't given 'no sentence'. Her murder charged was reduced to a manslaughter charge and the sentence was reduced based on time served. They'd been married to 31 years, and she'd been subject to emotional abuse throughout that time. This cannot be discounted, and indeed the court decided not to. The court had access to the facts and these cases are never open and shut. A lot of thought went into this decision and the precedent it sets, no less by the Court of Appeal, the second highest rankin…
/r/MensRights29/05/20 03:55 PM
8

The partial defence of diminished responsibility is relied on frequently in similar cases. A couple of examples: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-46302864 https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/wandsworth-man-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-by-means-of-diminished-responsibility-after-killing-his-wife/
/r/MensRights29/05/20 03:22 PM
0

This article leaves absent some crucial details as to why the charges were reduced. The lesser charge was accepted by prosecutors on the grounds of diminished responsibility after a psychiatric report concluded Mrs Challen was suffering from an "adjustment disorder". Mr Justice Edis said the killing came after "years of controlling, isolating and humiliating conduct" with the added provocation of her husband's "serial multiple infidelity". "You felt trapped and manipulated because you were trapp…
/r/MensRights29/05/20 03:05 PM
5

I visited the subreddit and thought it was for ironic anti-SJW shitposting lol
/r/MensRights28/05/20 11:05 AM
1

Sentencing needs to account for many factors. If an individual is suffering a psychotic episode and steals a car (first crime they have ever committed), they should absolutely get a lighter sentence than someone who stole a car and is a notorious violent gang member on their 6th major crime who is considered to be a danger to society. Part of a fair justice system is making sure that the crimes have adequate sentences to the individual facts of each case. A guilty verdict for a crime does not ta…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 03:17 PM
1

On the subject of sources can we even verify whether this is real?
/r/MensRights09/05/20 02:44 PM
1

Again, let me say I'm not absolving her. All crimes are prosecuted the same way, it's sentencing that gives the penalty. Sentencing takes into account many factors including whether the defendant should have known better, their conditions at the time of the crime (for example if they committed a crime through necessity), character evidence, relevant defences, chances of re-offending and so on. I'm not sure you understand how sentencing or the criminal justice system actually works in practice. I…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 02:30 PM
-2

Since when was 'excuse' and 'reason' for an action mutually exclusive? Are they not both justifications for acting a certain way?
/r/MensRights09/05/20 01:10 PM
2

Though I am not defending Cardi B's actions I literally said I wasn't absolving her lol I'm pointing out the inconsistency lies not with sex, but economics. Not everything is a battle of the sexes and reality is more nuanced. Additionally, should we not give a bigger break to those under more more strain? Those with power and influence should surely have to be more accountable for their actions?
/r/MensRights09/05/20 12:58 PM
-33

It's an important thing to talk about, but it seems the dichotomy is not one between men and women, but an economic difference. Though I am not defending Cardi B's actions, they were taken during a time when she herself has said she was struggling to put food on the table, whereas Cosby was abusing his authority and trust. The contexts between the two is an economic one. Had Cardi B been male I believe more people would be willing to forgive her for her past as she was in abject poverty. Compare…
/r/MensRights09/05/20 10:37 AM
1

It is categorically false that the law operates to protect paedophiles and sex gangs in the UK. If you believe the police and the government genuinely let these gangs act freely without consequence you're deluded. The law absolutely extends to these groups, but the waters are muddied by political commentary on the matter by non-experts on matters of law. The "source" you've cited provides no evidence, data or accurate legal commentary, is anecdotal and looks generally untrustworthy.
/r/MensRights11/04/20 01:48 PM
1

True, but if successful in their act they would be guilty of a crime and also the victim (ie feel the effect) of that crime. There is a moral victim of suicide and also a legal perpetrator.
/r/MensRights11/04/20 01:29 PM
1

They're measuring hate speech online and tracking individuals who use it in the same way the police would if those views were expressed in any other public forum. This isn't quite a thought-crime unless you class the hate speech or defamation laws currently in place as thought-crimes too.
/r/MensRights11/04/20 12:43 PM
3

Suicide (when it was illegal) is an antiquated but good example of a crime where the perpetrator is simultaneously the victim. Victimhood and criminal guilt are not mutually exclusive.
/r/MensRights09/04/20 09:11 PM
8

The law as it exists in the UK operates to protect young people from sexual misconduct, and in some cases this means not trying victims of sex crimes perpetrated by underage individuals as this is the precise class the law is aiming to protect. This is a well established rule that extends to both males and females that are under the age of consent. Consider the discrepancy: underage individuals cannot have the capacity to consent, and sexual engagement is statutory sexual assault. By sharing the…
/r/MensRights09/04/20 06:58 PM
0

The definition is not complete. It misses the mens rea of intentional penile penetration.
/r/MensRights04/04/20 05:39 AM
1

This is a problem with sentencing of crimes in general, not the rape charge under s1 SOA 2003. Don't conflate the two problems as identical.
/r/MensRights11/03/20 06:01 PM
-22

The law for sexual assault doesn’t really need to change, as the violent nature of the act is taken into account in sentencing if the defendant is found guilty. Rape in name is merely a historical remnant; the law currently treats men and women functionally the same for crimes of the same nature. When you create law, it takes time and effort to implement and puts pressure on the court system. If things don’t need to be altered, we don’t need to exercise that pressure on barristers and courts alr…
/r/MensRights11/03/20 07:13 AM
-5

It's called the confidence gap, and there is a difference in it between men and women. Men tend to overemphasise achievement etc and women underestimate their ability. There's lots of data and articles on it.
/r/MensRights12/01/20 10:29 AM
1

Evidence is not the same as proof. Evidence can be faked, false or misinterpreted. That's why we have a legal system with such a high standard of evidence for criminal convictions: to be absolutely certain there is no conviction of innocent people. In this case no such evidence standard seems to have been met; at least, things aren't as clear as they usually are.
/r/MensRights06/01/20 10:02 AM
1

If you became an expert in the legal field I'd probably trust your opinion more, yes. I doubt you'd hold the same opinions if you had more experience in the area. I usually take a number of things into account when forming opinions. Authority and status of the individual, their background and motivations, the argument itself and the indisputable facts. I don't believe Starmer spews any old nonsense, but if he did I would cease to regard him a credible source (Boris Johnson is a good example of s…
/r/MensRights06/01/20 09:19 AM
1

The appearance of consent does not equate to actual consent under law. Coercion or duress may be a factor. Facts of the case aside, the handling of the case itself has not been effective or of a standard high enough to convict. Based on that alone there ought to be a retrial.
/r/MensRights06/01/20 09:01 AM
1

I can with significant certainty assure you that I trust the professional opinions of those two barristers above the opinions of yourself, an anonymous reddit user. If they were to weigh in I'd be more than interested in their views on the matter.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 05:00 PM
1

I'm not familiar with the Cypriot legal system, but a retracted confession made in the middle of the night with no lawyer present is not a basis for conviction in more stringent legal system's like the UK. Perhaps I should have said due process as required/expected in a developed legal system has not been followed.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 04:11 PM
2

Yes they could have been. I'm not saying that's impossible, only that more evidence and proper legal procedures need to be followed, and they haven't. To me, injuries seem like strong indications of foul play, and great care (care that has not been taken here) needs to be taken to clear the waters. Where is this video proof you speak of? Why was it not brought as evidence at the original trial, or is it character related and irrelevant to the case at hand? I need more information.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 04:08 PM
4

They have to option to present evidence as part of their defence. They didn't. Their prerogative, but as part of the wider fog of this case it is a red flag. You say the injuries can be faked and that many are, and cite Gone Girl as a source. Gone Girl is fictitious and does not legitimise your point. What are your sources and stats for the fact many rape injuries are faked? Is it above 95% fake in cases of rape injuries? I doubt it, but if it is that high, is that statistical standard of eviden…
/r/MensRights05/01/20 03:53 PM
3

If you need to tell them that, go to the source, don't pander to this audience. My comment still stands though. More information is needed, and we must note the fact that due process has not been followed, so justice cannot be said to be done.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 03:42 PM
1

Is this favoured application to make up for a discrepancy in actual proportions in the STEM itself? ie are women favoured more heavily because they are underrepresented in the area, or are they favoured above and beyond being represented equally in STEM? It's an important distinction.
/r/MensRights05/01/20 11:12 AM
0

None of the alleged rapists gave evidence and her conviction depends on her confession obtained in police interviews without a lawyer. This looks like a very worrying conviction. Of course we don't know the truth. But the 2.15 a.m. confession, without a solicitor & swiftly retracted is something to be pretty wary of. Take the injuries sustained as well: injuries 'consistent with gang rape' as put forward by the defence (if not at trial on the media) are injuries 'consistent with consent'. Seems …
/r/MensRights05/01/20 10:44 AM
3

Agree with the sentiment, but 'hardwired' doesn't look to be what this proves. It could simply be societal/cultural factors that cause the bias, not necessarily genetic or biological. More evidence would need to be presented to prove that fact.
/r/MensRights04/01/20 10:40 AM
9

I mean they are to an extent. All body images are perpetrated by both sexes. The ideal woman/man is envisioned to be a certain way by societal factors that are developed and maintained by both men and women. Natalie Dormer is right, it affects both men and women, and men and women perpetuate the cycle.
/r/MensRights29/12/19 06:00 PM
2

you've got me
/r/MensRights02/11/19 03:45 PM
1

Evidence illegally obtained isn't always admissible in court. Even if it is, you will be held criminally liable for the method of obtainment. Don't pretend to know the law. You're peddling claims that are flat out baseless and false. The activity you are promoting is dangerous, and will put you and others at risk of criminal liability.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:50 AM
1

Protection of liberty is not carte blanche to break the law and act unethically. Realistically, how significant is this problem that you need to actively break the law to preemptively defend yourself over a crime that only exists in theory? What kind of partners are you picking where you are worried about being accused of rape? You already recognise that it is a rash decision; there are better ways at dealing with the problem.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 09:40 AM
1

If you don't trust your partner enough to not guarantee she's not a 'crazy bitch' who will accuse you of rape, you're not very good at selecting partners are you. Secondly, 'covering your ass' does not extend to illegal activity. You will still be held liable for that action even if the evidence is used as a defence in court.
/r/MensRights02/11/19 08:40 AM
1

I am not familiar with US law, but 'recording' no doubt extends to audio recordings in strict definition when the other party 'has a reasonable expectation of privacy'. You are literally making up the law as you go along to fit your case. That's not how the legal system works. Legal statutes are not a blank cheque, and contain limitations and exceptions. Clearly, 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is covered in this case. If you are getting this info from legit legal sources, please link them. …
/r/MensRights02/11/19 08:29 AM
1

Breaking the law and banking on a good lawyer is not an advisable solution. Not acting illegally or unethically from the start is surely preferable.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 06:39 PM
-2

It is clear this law does not extend to cases such as the above though - https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellecitron/2014/05/15/nonconsensual-taping-of-sex-partners-is-a-crime/, specifically that it is 'illegal to use a device to secretly record or broadcast a person undressing or having sex when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy'. Obviously courts would not be willing to uphold cases like the one above.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 06:15 PM
-2

What does this mean? One party state as in China? You need to direct me to some real legal sources.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 05:43 PM
-1

Let's be clear: you're less likely to be punished for something you haven't done as opposed to laws you are breaking.
/r/MensRights31/10/19 05:30 PM
-13

This seems extremely unethical and potentially illegal. Where does the law permit this behaviour?
/r/MensRights31/10/19 12:25 PM
1

Not sure what the law states in the US but at least in England/Wales you cannot retroactively withdraw consent to sexual intercourse. This is bad law. This statement is misleading and flat out false. It may be better to point out that consent between two parties is testimony based and a weak form of evidence. However the actual standard of evidence required to convict someone of rape is much higher than mere claims of no consent. This text is not helpful to women by claiming they 'victimise them…
/r/MensRights31/10/19 12:23 PM
2

So do men get harsher sentences or women get more lenient ones?
/r/MensRights13/04/19 08:09 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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