TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

angryDownvotes Archive

View 0 posts and 15 comments by angryDownvotes on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

SRS, or /r/ShitRedditSays is a subreddit that is claims to point out cases of racism and sexism on reddit. In practice, it's a radical-feminist/social justice warrior vote brigade. (Look at their sidebar.)
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:43 PM
2

Thanks for the reply. That is an excellent point. I'm just trying to keep the discussion going and keep it civil. This is usually a pretty controversial conversation, as I'm sure you've seen. Do you know the percentage of botched circumcisions by any chance? Even in cases where the procedure proceeded without complications, there are plenty of males who are horrified of what was done to them. I'm a voluntarist, and believe that all human interaction should be done voluntarily. A procedure done w…
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:20 PM
2

I'm not even talking about the state, I'm explaining why it's morally wrong to violate someone's bodily rights. If something you own is damaged by a third party, then that third party is responsible to pay for the damage. In the case of circumcision, whose fault is it that the procedure was done? The parents? The practitioner? Who will pay for the damage done?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:13 PM
5

Let the parents choose. Let the child choose. It's their body after all.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:05 PM
3

I'll consider postponing circumcision until they can choose. That is good to hear. Circumcision itself is merely a procedure. Performing it on someone involuntarily is where the problem lies. But I'll catch an earful from the men (and probably women) in my family if I really do postpone. They do not own your child, or your child's body. They have no say in this matter.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:04 PM
3

My view is that part of men's rights is circumsizing your children without state interference. Your rights only apply to yourself, not to others. Quick lesson about Property Rights and self-ownership: You own your body and may do what you wish with it. You cannot own a living person's body, it belongs to them.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 06:58 PM
3

The main problem with infant circumcision is consent. Infants get chopped without their say in the matter and that is not okay. If someone wants the procedure done to themselves for whatever reason that's fine, just don't force it onto people that can't yet decide for themselves. There are plenty of people circumcised as infants that are horrified with what happened to them, yet what recourse do they have?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 06:42 PM
2

Sort the comments in that thread by controversial for fun.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 05:32 PM
2

Forcing someone to suffer urinary tract infections is a violation of the NAP, yes? Chopping off a piece of someone's dick is a violation of the NAP, yes? If have breasts you might get breast cancer. Better remove them.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:15 PM
2

Yes, I own my body to an extent. I have the rights to my body. I have the right to make decisions for my son that he can not make for himself, such as having a piece of skin removed from under his tongue so that he can avoid a speech impediment or having the doctor cut his ear and insert tubes so that he can hear. Those are actual useful and/or necessary medical procedures used when the body is not functioning normally. A foreskin is normal. You wouldn't remove your daughter's breasts on the of-…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:11 PM
3

No, it isn't. Yes it is. You are violating that child's property rights. That is his body, not yours. Babies do not have wills. Therein lies the fatal flaw in your logic Property rights do not change with age. Their body is not yours. Pacifism can be a violation of the NAP. Pacifism is the opposite. Forcing an unnecessary and irreversible medical procedure without someone's consent is a violation of the NAP.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:59 PM
5

Your application of the Non Aggression Principal in this issue is incorrect. It might be slightly painful but that pain is forgotten very quickly. Causing pain is still violating the NAP. The risks are minimal compared to the rewards. Forcing one to undergo a risk against their will is a violation of the NAP. By your standards, not circumcising is a decision you make for you child that they can't make for themselves and if their foreskin grew to their penis thereby shortening it for the rest of …
/r/MensRights01/11/13 08:59 PM
5

Ignoratio elenchi. It does not matter what, or if there are any supposed benefits. It's the same argument used for taxes and government spending. Look at it through property rights. I own my body, you have no right to force me to undergo any procedure if I do not desire it. If I remove the porch from your house because I think it's a possible hazard or because it does not look right, I'm not violating your property rights since it's better now right? The NAP is broken the second you begin to alt…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 08:53 PM
3

I'm neither for nor against circumcision. Circumcision is not the issue. It's newborn circumcision that's the problem. If someone chooses to circumcise themselves, there is no problem. It's doing it to someone without their consent that is the main issue. What I am for is the parent's right to choose what's best for their child. What we are for is giving the child the ability to choose. The problem is that most circumcised males were deprived of their choice in the matter, and ultimately since i…
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:08 PM
4

I'm a libertarian that lives by the NAP. So am I. Circumcision is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principal. You are causing harm to a child by damaging their body without their consent.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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