TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

anonymous1 Archive

View 0 posts and 162 comments by anonymous1 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I'm not the OP. but it is still better than nothing.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:58 PM
1

That free legal counsel also sometimes stinks. Like when I went in as an undergrad to discuss a landlord-tenant issue. I described my problem, noting that I believed I had an "oral" contract with the landlord to perform some act. He debated with me on a pedantic level, saying that I didn't have an oral contract but a "verbal" one. Nevermind that he was wrong to correct me (having since gone to law school where I learned we were both right and I was being more precise than him). But I got nothing…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:19 PM
1

You can always try, but 1) defamation is often harder than you think in praxis and 2) you basically open up your whole life and character to discussion (see, if you have no good character, you can't defame it. [see 7th bullet])
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:02 PM
0

See - that part I certainly don't condone the 2k a month and 160 iphone if she got by before with less or the equivalent standard of living could be had in an apartment at half the cost. But you do also recognize, I'm sure, that an apartment is not a house. I also am not sure if I agree that income should be shifted between the parents to ensure the child's standard of living should remain unchanged, because expenses have gone up. When married, you can decide to take an easier job, work less, an…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 09:06 PM
1

Let's take a look at one simple thing: You take care of your kid. You pay for stuff he wants. Right? Feed him? Buy him a toy every once in a while? Maybe take him to the zoo? I'm going to take a wild guess: You don't do that on 22k a year + pay for your household expenses + pay for your own expenses. You don't do it by making 10k on music gigs either. Because that's poverty level. Earned income tax credit level. If you don't treat your kid like you have 22k/year in income, then why should the co…
/r/MensRights08/12/12 07:11 PM
1

Actually, when you said you'd pick up a minimum wage job just to spite the marriage . . . I'm thinking of taking on a minimum wage job, but they'd probably say 'doesn't matter, you could/should be making $80k'. Yeah. That's one of the reasons they impute income. Because people try to artificially reduce their earnings.
/r/MensRights08/12/12 06:34 PM
1

Scroll up to see your kneejerk assumption that I had some sort of feminist subtext of disapproval. Funny enough, the op responded with a story about his life and how he could relate to the Michael Douglas story. That is the conversation YOU interrupted. Then, I substantively responded that you presumed there was a subtext that I was philosophically against what the OP wrote. I wasn't, I told you I wasn't and now I'm telling you again. You keep assuming shit. This isn't reverse psychology... You …
/r/MensRights23/09/12 02:09 PM
1

You're really defensive about this... What your problem?
/r/MensRights22/09/12 03:17 AM
1

Paranoid much? No feminist agenda, just making a point of comparison. E.g, This apple is much like that apple. There was no value statement in my comment. Don't be so psychological next time. You read way too much into it.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:03 AM
2

that's . . . Michael Douglas territory. He tells a story about the age difference between him and his wife. He says it's like he's driving around in college and his friend turns to him while passing an elementary school, saying: see that girl in the sandbox? She'll be your wife one day. Anyhow. growing up doesn't mean people always act like adults.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:52 AM
1

I completely get that the system is fucked. And I completely disagree with the "fungible" folks that it is money in money out. If anything it should be devoted to raising the child's standard of living back to that in the marital household. But I think kids need a lot less than spouses demand/request. I also understand that the courts would be tremendously overburdened if the parties were able to go into court to challenge every expenditure. And that controlling ex-spouses could be contrary and …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:54 AM
-1

There are typically child support formulas - if I'm not mistaken the feds tied some money to setting up effective formulas in order to keep certain kids from becoming wards of the state. That said, there are some folks who try to set laws where the child's standard of living is not affected by the divorce. Where the divorcing parents suddenly cannot make a free choice to take on a less stressful job that pays less, whereas they could if they were married. It's a twisted world but also twisted be…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:18 AM
3

No, just a linguistic implication of a shorter word: taboo rules say that you cannot say a word that contains one of the clues. Saying female includes "male" so should be also impermissible to say.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:05 AM
2

Which is interesting except research demonstrates that people suck at hiring and promoting the right or best people for the job. In fact, you can google research that shows promotion at random tends to produce better results than promotion by intelligent selection.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 05:17 PM
5

Meh, go to r/Philosophy and then you'll find tons of people who are unintelligible and yet intelligent. As far as expressing my message precisely or accurately, I accomplished that. Had I said it less accurately or less precisely, there is always the one person who would deliberately misperceive it and argue against a straw. If you want the simple version,l then it is essentially the following: it is a farce to call it "oppressive" when the reality is that the group downvotes, bans, adds derogat…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 02:05 PM
6

Thank you! I was around SRS when it was stormfront or reddit posts too - the funny thing is when I said that wasn't what SRS was started for and what it was originally about - I got downvoted to hell by some people posing as if it was always about posting misogyny from menrights . . . Then it progressed from just posting lots of junk from mensrights to posting anything that said anything bad about women and even stuff that was clearly sarcastic humor in the mood of dead baby jokes - where you sa…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 01:55 PM
16

any kind of oppressive speech is forbidden When the definition of "oppressive" depends on a subjective assessment of a small subset of language receivers rather than an objective demonstration of connotative and denotative meaning, then the standard is nothing more than a ruse to enforce arbitrary distinctions. Unfortunately, the question of what is offensive or what is improper in r/SRS/ comes down to the arbitrary line of: would the moderators be in favor of the opinion or against the opinion.…
/r/MensRights22/12/11 07:57 AM
5

1.2 Billion served* and counting. *Not all servings involved food.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:44 PM
1

Unisex bathrooms!
/r/MensRights11/11/11 01:23 PM
-4

they can take time to either unban it in a timely fashion or at the very least ban r/againstmensrights That's about the biggest entitlement attitude I've seen in a while. You write that like you paid for the right to create that subreddit and someone took your entitlement away.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 03:35 PM
1

Then go research what the courts call a classification for purposes of equal protection.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 07:10 PM
1

The standard of equal protection isn't: is everything treated equally? If no, then strike down law. First, this is not a facially discriminatory gender based classification if it applies to all rape charges of men and women on its face. If it isn't facially discriminatory, then the courts need to find evidence that the law does discriminate based on gender. Second, even if it is facially neutral, to continue an equal protection analysis, the courts must find another way of finding discrimination…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:51 AM
1

Can you hit up some details on why this violates equal protection?
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:10 AM
1

I don't delete comments because I answer my question elsewhere . . . hell I don't delete comments as a matter of practice. Wasn't laziness - it was business as usual. So I'm offended.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 04:29 AM
1

You, the person who was offering an explanation and did a shitty job using stupid pronouns! Me: trying to get someone who was explaining to actually explain. Also, I wrote out a full-length description in another comment. So I took a shitload of time to google it - guess you didn't read that? Jerk.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 03:48 AM
1

At base the joke is practically a circle: feminism -> coffee = sex; folgers = coffee; folgers = degrading to women -> feminism
/r/MensRights11/07/11 05:21 PM
4

Oh yeah - definitely too many layers.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:11 PM
16

EDIT: finally figured it out after tracking all the links. A feminist was propositioned in an elevator one night. Apparently, the feminist said something to the effect of "I'm tired and I'm retiring to my room" after leaving a hotel bar near 4am in the morning. I believe, she may have been giving a talk at a conference which is why she was in the hotel. On the elevator, a person she did not know said that he found her interesting (perhaps as a result of the talk) and hoped to continue talking in…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:34 PM
3

Who is skepchick, and who and where was the person who asked skepchick back for coffee?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:16 PM
5

EDIT: I think I figured it out and posted it above Definitely me too. Let's try some direct questions: Who is skepchick? where did "Someone"/"he" ask skepchick back to his room to talk and have coffee? Did the skepchick person interpret "have coffee" as sexy times? And as a result, got offended and made a comment about feminism? Then this Dawkins person - who I assume is a 3rd party, blew shit up by saying something about skepchick's response to the invitation that the earlier unnamed "he" made,…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 12:11 PM
2

[citation needed] Seriously - where have you read this in a credible news source?
/r/MensRights02/07/11 06:20 AM
1

So your counter-evidence is a conclusion that AT&T isn't a market monopoly like US Steel or Standard Oil and thus none of the 3 are relevant? No proof from you - no evidence from you. No sources. No citations. Boy - you're the pot calling the kettle black. Do you happen to have a resource that shows the historical price of steel in the nineteenth century? Because if you do, lets go look it up. Don't conclude that simply because google exists, all the evidence should be at fingertips. Sometimes r…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 10:41 PM
1

Shifting goal posts. Plus you ignore AT&T. Another post, another opportunity for you to ignore what you can't deal with. Then you change your question from monopolies to how the government got land . . . like government annexing land and purchasing it like the Louisiana purchase or winning territories from Span and Mexico are somehow relevant to this discussion. I show you something. it isn't good enough. I show you something, it isn't good enough. I've given you the examples - you don't refute …
/r/MensRights26/06/11 09:55 PM
1

OP can you edit your post to include this relevant information: It isn't just that if you purchase that single item the person makes money, but that if you purchase ANYTHING from Amazon within the 24 hours after you click the link, the person who spammed the link gets credit. At least according to other moderators who have posted on this issue.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 08:15 PM
1

You're ignoring history and claiming that you "won't just take [me] on [my] word." You don't know the history of the Sherman Antitrust Act so you're afraid to take me on my word? Instead you joke "after all, they'r eeverywhere throughout history" You don't remember reading about the Robber Barons in history class? You don't remember AT&T in the 20th century being broken up into the Minibells? You don't remember US Steel? You don't remember any of this shit? There - right there above TWO EXAMPLES…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:51 PM
1

Are you purposely trying to avoid answering my simple questions? Just one example of a turnpike (or private railroad) that charged exorbitant fees. One. Well - lets go back to Hill. Hill was known as a "rate cutter" and cut rates on the Pullman sleeping cars. The rates for the Pullman sleeping cars on other railroads were set at exorbitantly high rates. One of the reasons was because some of the other railroads had secret contracts with the Pullman company to not reduce prices. That's straight o…
/r/MensRights26/06/11 05:53 PM
1

I showed you it's possible to have a successful private railroad. Just because it had contact in some form with the government doesn't mean it had help from the government - after all, using this logic we could claim that all human progress was the direct result of government intervention. But that would sound... well... religious. You show me a fluke and product of a time when midwest states were territories and had populations of less than 2000 in the entire land area . . . and you think that …
/r/MensRights26/06/11 04:02 PM
1

Your link . . . it comes from the same source as the Walter Block book - Mises, the same political website. The author you cite now is a fringe historical revisionist who at one point joined an organization in favor of secession of the confederate states? I don't mean to form an ad hominem attack here, because there is plenty wrong with the logic in his arguments, but seriously you pick a guy even farther to the fringe to support your argument? Not convincing. And Read this page from one of the …
/r/MensRights26/06/11 07:54 AM
1

Did the railroads abuse the people and the government by providing them with a cheaper way to travel from point A to point B? That's an odd use of the word. Obviously since you don't know the history, I'll share it. The government essentially GIFTED lands to the railroad and gave them rights of way over government land. The railroads WOULD NOT BUILD and DID NOT BUY the land on the open market. The only reason we have a coast-to-coast railroad is because the government GAVE the land or sold it at…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 07:31 PM
1

Purchasing the rights of way and dealing with holdouts will cripple the system. How can you know this? Also, why would people build complex cities, businesses, and structures that can only be accessed by a single road owned by a single person/business? Doesn't that strike you as a bit irrational? Do you think maybe road corporations would be traded like other businesses are traded today - on a free and open stock exchange? Maybe the owners of homes and businesses accessible by certain roads woul…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 06:59 PM
1

It isn't a "fringe" position to believe that a monopoly doesn't yield positive results for consumers. ;) Roads would result in private monopoly as well - so I'm not sure what you're getting at . . . We don't have a coke and pepsi road. Look at what happens to regulated monopolies like comcast and cablevision. Or are you suggesting that we'll have 3 roads to get to the same city? Or somehow we'll have private enterprise purchasing private land to convert into roads? Or, we'll abuse eminent domain…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 05:31 PM
1

Unless you're having the Coke road to New York right next to the Pepsi road to new york, private roads will be monopolistic also. In a quote attributed to Einstein, he once said "if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough" 500 pages? Also, he comes from a school on the fringes of economic science - anarchocapitalism. So I know what his conclusion is going to be before I even read it: governement is bad and inefficient. So, make sure you take it with a grain of sal…
/r/MensRights25/06/11 04:35 PM
1

Yeah, like those people that fix the roads . . . fucking government.
/r/MensRights25/06/11 02:08 PM
1

It is definitely easy to read as the replying commenter holding those views on gender roles personally. But, the whole women getting the children isn't quite historically accurate, I think the rationale is off.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 12:25 PM
1

By the time you're about to graduate as a 3L, a lot of the things they do in the way of law school management will seem much more transparent. Scheduling classes is not only a function of what profs are on faculty, but also what the administration can convince those professors to do. At my school, we had a crim pro professor who was basically awful (knows his shit cold but can't teach effectively), and a good one teaching the evening session. The day class had about 32 students, and the evening …
/r/MensRights22/05/11 08:30 PM
0

One of the wonderful things about the internet is: I don't have to visit your site if I don't want to, and you don't have to listen to me. I'll add that I disagree with a number of your positions, so far as I've seen you comment, submit and from what I've read at your site. That's that - have a good life.
/r/MensRights18/05/11 04:27 AM
0

Paul Elam, an author on that blog site writes of reddit: Just check out some of the reactions from the feminists, manginas, white knights and even some of the tenderfoot-green MRA’s over on reddit, to some of the articles posted from here. It’s actually quite comical to go in for a read. You can almost just see them, spittle flying over their keyboards as they hammer away in angry spastic fits, like manic Daffy Ducks on meth. “Sthee! Stheeeee!! Ith's Mithogyny! MITH-O-GYN-EEE! He just hateths wo…
/r/MensRights18/05/11 01:16 AM
2

If we could rouse the masses to make a Jon Kyl number as well defined as santorum, then that would be hilarious.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 05:20 PM
2

Make a record of everything. Write everything down as you remember it. The closer in time to the events, the better. If she attempts to communicate with you by phone, don't pick it up. Record any conversation that you do have. Or, at the very least, write down a detailed description of the conversation immediately after it occurs. If she approaches you on the street - warn her you're going to record the conversation and then do so. Also, if there was anyone else around that saw the puking and th…
/r/MensRights16/04/11 05:01 PM
-6

Asians dig wells, screw, and chow down on doggies?
/r/MensRights13/04/11 05:37 AM
2

There's no such thing as equality IMHO. Whenever you have an entrenched interest and an opposing interest you have a tension between those who want power and those who have power. The very ceding of power indicates an absence of power. Therefore, any point at which an entrenched interest cedes to an opposing interest to make the interest effectively even - actually demonstrates the superior power and authority of the formerly minority interest-holder.
/r/MensRights04/04/11 12:29 AM
2

With you and me combined it'll have 10 upvotes. Yay binary!
/r/MensRights30/03/11 05:52 AM
3

very often do, There are ways to minimize and prevent those types of things: 1) Have it reviewed by an independent lawyer on behalf of the fiance 2) Have it reviewed with sufficient time (don't rush right before the altar) 3) Make sure it is in substance not unfair - it has to provide at least something coercion (which can be nothing more than refusing to marry without one) Though I can't say I know anything about prenups, this by itself seems highly unlikely. You're not entitled to marry anyone…
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:45 AM
1

Your state has default rules regarding acquiring marital property as well as rules on divorce. If you have no prenuptial agreement, then you are merely accepting some wacky state legislature's idea of what they think is best.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:34 AM
1

you are an apologist. You will search for any alternative explanation, to preserve the idea that the family court system is fair and functional. No, I'm a person of logic, not of truthiness. The fact is the courts entail advocacy, and that involves characterizations of things involving personal opinions. that still isn't perjury. You just have a warped sense of what courts should be. You're the one who says the court system is systematically wrong on evidence, on custody, on . . . well you certa…
/r/MensRights15/01/11 05:09 AM
1

"He threatened all my friends." An interpretation, an opinion. You could have said "I'll see you tomorrow" to her friend with a devilish sneer and murder in your eyes and she could have called it a threat. "The children are all bruised" Did you ever spank your children? I'm not an anti-spanking person per se, but did you ever? Can you see how each can be misleading perhaps, but not necessarily perjury?
/r/MensRights15/01/11 02:30 AM
1

There is already a law that states that perjury in family court can result in jail time Look, I understand that there is a rule against perjury. I have no problem with it being enforced. Disagreements about facts don't make perjury though.
/r/MensRights15/01/11 01:51 AM
1

What will these changes do? It will put the onus on those who live with a person for 14 years, then suddently "realize" they have been abused all this time and told no one, to prove it. Dishonest abuse allegations will immediately cease. Valid allegations of abuse will still be heard. A few short jail terms for perjury will immediately quash the practice of throwing allegations around irresponsibly. The divorce system should result in parental jail time? That sounds like a recipe for disincentiv…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:47 PM
1

In a just world I would have sole custody of the kids until she proved she is sober, sane, and stable. And here is why THAT is a bad idea: your phrasing would mean that in the absence of evidence, one of two things could happen: 1) if neither parent proves sanity, sobriety, and stability, then neither parent gets custody; or 2) if one parent fails to prove sanity, sobriety, and stability, then the other one gets the children by default. Do you see how silly that is?? Your phrasing of "how it sho…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:44 PM
1

I've been saying that your approval of the "winner-take-all" philosophy is wrong. And have you been reading over and over again how what you propose as an alternative doesn't work? Or just ignoring it? You still hold firm to the belief that your ex-wife will agree with you on most things? The world doesn't work that way. You think it is unfair because you don't have sole custody. Am I right? How it works today is wrong. How many of your friends and family would reasonably believe you if you told…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 02:46 PM
1

I don't care for your judgmental attitude. I have an opinion: that your belief on "joint custody" is incompatible with your story. The basis of my opinion is that you would have to agree with your wife - and you tell me that your wife refuses to agree with you. The basis of your opinion is that the system is a "racket" and that the court "seized your rights" based on the testimony of an "unfaithful" wife. Yet, you have NO answer for what would be a better system. You're just complaining, without…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 06:23 AM
1

The court seized my rights, for no reason, other than the testimony of an unfaithful and angry spouse. I keep saying it, you keep dodging it. You claim there needs to be more. I implore you, answer: What other proof COULD there be? Again, consider a rape that happens behind closed doors between two people. There will only be the testimony of one person. Do you really want to walk in a world where it is unsafe to walk alone because the bad guy will always walk free? Would you feel comfortable con…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 06:07 AM
1

you sound like a divorce attorney, who has thought long and hard about how to justify her career. Luckily, I'm not even an attorney - so I guess I'm shielded from your derision as a matter of profession. Unfortunately, you note problems but you can't design a solution. The system should be joint custody? You expect me to believe after using words like "racket" that the court should say you have equal rights to decide things about your children? You'd be in court 3 times a month, asking the "rack…
/r/MensRights13/01/11 03:09 PM
1

I'm going to write a thorough response do you, because I think what you've said raises a lot of important issues that need to be clarified. For example, your view of child support relative to income is wonky - to be explained below. Truly though, I am sorry that you lost all contact with your children on the mere allegation of abuse. I know that must be devastating for you, particularly given the circumstances. I know some social workers that have to go through self-reporting and have to admit t…
/r/MensRights12/01/11 05:03 PM
1

His is a power that cannot rationally be exercised. It is an empty threat to the other party. What about when he is the primary caregiver? I mean, nothing comes without attendant circumstances. You can't say its an empty threat without assuming a number of factors that would make him, in the eyes of a court, the less suitable parent to satisfy the best interests of the child. Your statement assumes a lot. I just got done writing a ton on why some courts dislike joint custody. So the alternative …
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:00 AM
1

Note when you say "either party can veto" - I think that's a healthy way to phrase it. It means that the man can basically veto it too.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:29 AM
22

Well, the answer to your question requires a little more information on joint custody and a little more specificity. I did some reading and this is basically your answer - please read to the end: First, there are, generally speaking, two types of custody: legal custody & physical custody. Legal is decision-making authority, and physical is well: physical. Second, you have to think of the Legal custody as sort of a sine qua non for physical custody: if you can't make a decision about the child, t…
/r/MensRights11/01/11 01:49 PM
2

Hell yeah. And how exactly do you tell your wife that she's getting fat and needs to cut down on the pastries? Cause that abcisizer thing was totally what I was going to buy this year.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 05:00 PM
3

When I saw it I knew right away: that's part of the initialism, it is one letter away from Human Immunodeficiency Virus. HIV ~ PIV
/r/MensRights26/11/10 02:37 PM
2

A little V for Vendetta type freedom
/r/MensRights16/10/10 02:20 AM
5

More to the point, there are two sofas in the story, but he's sleeping on the floor. Was there a third person in the room on the other sofa the entire time? I'm not sure I'm getting a good picture of the situation.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 04:17 PM
1

As a matter of pure logic, "people who are in favor of mutilating babies" is an opinion statement, it is also not a neutrally worded opinion statement. There are two types of opinions, faith based and fact based. Do you base your opinion on fact or faith? Opinions generally, unless mystical faith based ones, must be based on facts. So for our purposes, your opinion must be based on facts. Otherwise your opinion is merely speculation and gut instinct. I refuse to tell you whether or not circumcis…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 12:50 PM
1

If you need something from me to decide that background truth or falsity, you are looking at the wrong thing. To borrow your analogy, it is like asking you whether a bishop can move diagonally and you saying: well why don't you move your bishop and then I'll tell you whether bishops can move diagonally. To borrow your analogy again, I can't see why you need to see my side of the board to answer whether you think the brain could release as much or more molecules of positive affect neurotransmitte…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:55 AM
1

What do you mean by sensation? Define it. Is it at the brain level, at the nerve ending level, is it neurochemical? What is your underlying measurement of sensation.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 01:16 AM
1

Before I even touch phantom limb I need to know what it is you are using it to support So, before you will debate the validity of a premise, you need to know whether someone agrees with you on a conclusion? Logically, they are independent. So, man up. This is about the 4th time you have ignored my statements to just talk about what you want to talk about. Please tell me if this is correct or not(and don't try to bullshit about ethics being irrelevant. That is the entire issue and we both know it…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 01:14 AM
1

You make may head hurt because you try SO HARD to ignore everything of substance. You have not ONCE mentioned phantom limb or why it is not analogous. You sir are a bigger fool than the other fellow. You really haven't said much of anything other than your "you can't hit air where skin used to be." What I said is that THAT POSITION IS IRRELEVANT to neurochemical responses in the brain which may vary more than on the level or location of nerve endings. You have no understanding of that or you hav…
/r/MensRights03/10/10 04:23 PM
1

Wow you're fucking trolling me right? Do I NEED to quote you to prove you wrong again and again? Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[5][6][7][8][9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. So. I'm right, you're wrong. I meant that you can't hit something …
/r/MensRights03/10/10 05:34 AM
0

I quoted you. You wrote "stubbed the one that wasn't there" and I asked what you meant by that. That's a serious question. ON ITS FACE, it conjures images of you hitting something that doesn't exist. Swing and a miss. That's the LITERAL meaning of your words. Hitting something that isn't there. But now you're saying that you didn't mean that. That I read it horribly wrong. And that reading it horribly wrong is "strawmanning" you. You meant you'd hit the rest of the hand and not feel anything whe…
/r/MensRights02/10/10 11:20 AM
0

Sadly, you're an idiot. if he stubbed the one that wasn't there How the fuck would you stub something that doesn't exist? Hitting air? If that is part of your explanation then you really can't handle the rest of what I was saying. then surely eliminating one side of that will reduce sensation. Given your understanding of stubbing something that isn't there, surely you don't understand the other aspects.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:17 PM
1

My point was as at the beginning. Uncut is not absolutely 100% the better choice, and no studies claim it is absolutely 100% the better choice. Some people prefer it. Some people prefer circumcision. Someone can have a different point of view than you right? Someone may hate broccoli even if you hate it? Same here.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 04:46 AM
1

still supports the idea that he is better left uncut No. No it doesn't. You used the phrase "is better." The correct thing to say is perhaps that there is a "chance of him being better off, but there is also a percentage likelihood he'll be better off circumcised." Even better: According to the self-report measure, the ratio of adults who were circumcised as adults who preferred their pre-circumcised state as compared to those that preferred their post-circumcised state was approximately three t…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 11:45 PM
1

Skepticism to some point is. But you're not doing rationale skepticism. You invoked gravity as not certain. Yet, would you argue with me if I said something that was consistent with gravity?
/r/MensRights30/09/10 11:35 PM
1

What does it matter? Now 10% of respondents isn't good enough to show you that it isn't merely negligible? Your goalposts move again huh! And the answer, if I recall correctly, is only 27% more than those who said pleasure increased, if I remember correctly. The information is available to the public on scholar.google.com Just search for circumcision studies. You can do it.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 08:46 PM
1

skepticism is exactly what I meant, and it is relevant and applicable.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 08:41 PM
1

I told you go to the research. It is there at scholar.google - nearly 10% of people reported an increase in pleasure post-circumcision. Do you remember reading that now? Is 10% possible? Plausible? A big enough minority for you? Where are your goalposts now?
/r/MensRights30/09/10 05:03 PM
1

Sorry, let me correct myself - as I am able to do but you seem not to. I meant: skepticism. My bad.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 05:02 PM
1

Solipsism is the thrust of your final protest.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 04:45 PM
1

You keep moving the goalposts. You sicken me. You can agree with me what I say is possible. Good. Because if you want to see the research just go to scholar.google and search for yourself. You'll find data that shows people report MORE pleasure post-circumcision. We already covered this before. It happens. Your "know nothing with real certainty" solipsist argument is pathetic. You lose. God day sir.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 04:37 PM
1

Which is the more likely result? Now you're not calling me wrong, you're calling me improbable. What's funny is that you're the one resorting to semantics. You refuse to agree on some principal that governments use the word "may" when they don't mean "may." Now you're not fighting me, you're fighting language itself and the meaning of words. It's almost like the world is working against you . . . first it was just me against you . . . now the government is working against you by using words that…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 03:57 PM
1

The question being why should you believe what I've written over your health service? Considering what I wrote is CONSISTENT with your health service, you're being dense. They only write that it may result. Like eating french fries may make you fat. That doesn't make it impossible for skinny people to eat french fries. My statement is consistent and so you can believe both.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 03:39 PM
1

True, as you walk into the trap. The first thing you noticed is that my reading is not precluded on the face of the sentence. So you revert to "natural way of reading." However, the sentence you quoted necessarily means -as naturally read- that it may not cause decreased pleasure. Even on a natural reading.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 03:13 PM
1

may experience less? May experience more. So I don't know what you're not reading into yours.
/r/MensRights30/09/10 02:59 PM
2

who or what is your "own health service"? Your response is like Kafka's The Trial. How am I supposed to defend myself from this nebulous health service entity?
/r/MensRights30/09/10 04:20 AM
2

The overall consensus is . . . you're saying there are people that don't agree or that everyone agrees. Want me to show you a study that concludes in your favor and yet nearly 10% of subjects state they have more pleasure after circumcision? I didn't ignore half your post purposefully. Are you referring to this: You are proposing the brain would not misdirect or misinterpret sensory information but amplify the effect of the signal from say the remaining nerve endings in the penis correct? We hav…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 03:27 AM
1

Some studies show increased pleasure, easier masturbation, and similar lengths of intercourse pre- and post-circumcision in adults who got circumcisions as adults. Don't fuck around by calling mine conjecture and yours qualitative. If you even bothered to read the literature, there are people who make the claims of increased pleasure. For sure, there are those that claim less pleasure and some that claim the same. But there are those that claim more. This isn't conjecture and you calling it that…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 01:01 AM
-1

I wonder if you're saying if you had only 4 fingers and you punched a person, could you never feel a rush of adrenaline as powerful as a person with 5 fingers? Because sensation is two-sided: nerve activity at the hand that is nothing more than a pressure sensing or heat sensing input device and a brain that does something with that input. If you can honestly tell me a person with 4 toes feels less pain when he stubs his foot or toe, go for it. not many people would take you seriously, including…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 12:56 AM
1

Because you have a problem defining sensitivity. Is sensitivity a feeling of pressure on your penis or is it the level of feeling at your brain? because if it is the first, then you're dumb for arguing with me over something I was never talking about. You can't poke a missing arm - thus there is no "sensation." Right? So if you can't touch the foreskin you can't have "sensation" That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about dopamine release, we're talking about neurochemical aspects r…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:46 PM
1

First off, phantom limb is related to sensitivity. It relates specifically to neurons being activated in the absence of nerve ending. Phantom limb is a disorder or defect - what the hell does that mean anyway? It means your brain actually DOES do it and DOES feel something. Right? There is activity in your brain there. disorder or not. It does totally support my theory. Why? Your theory is loss of nerve endings means all of a sudden you CAN'T feel something on the outside as a result of that los…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:38 PM
1

If you can explain to me why your brain-nerve connection dealing with your penis is somehow DIFFERENT FROM a brain-nerve connection dealing with your foot or hand, maybe we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, I have provided TONS of examples of evidence of the brain reorganizing in those circumstances. You think sensation in your penis is somehow categorically different than your finger in the eyes of the brain. Is that right? So don't give me shit because you don't know about the body. D…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:29 PM
1

You're no scientist that's for damn sure, because what the hell did I write in the first post? All testing methods with this claim suffer from severe SEVERE CLINICAL TESTING DEFECTS. Self-report measures, one-way analysis, and I could go ON and ON. That is what I wrote in my first post. Clinical testing methods are flawed. That's basically all I wrote. Can you agree with me that much? You are so frustrating I want to bash my head into a wall "I have postulated a hypothesis to the opposite" - I h…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:21 PM
1

You have nothing objectively to refute it - didn't we just talk before about how I don't have a burden here - even though you dismiss it out of hand. You can't even admit that it is POSSIBLE - until someone proves to you it is DEFINITE. Which is an absurd standard. You haven't even shown it is IMPROBABLE and you certainly haven't said anything that makes what I said IMPOSSIBLE. So where do you get off saying I haven't done anything? I have raised the issue on the basis of analogous and relevant …
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:19 PM
1

Loss of sensitivity . . . how do you explain phantom limb? The problem with you is you haven't bothered to contradict anything . . . and only claim that it is "opinion" or not "like" what we're talking about. You're a jerk.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:17 PM
0

Actually, I claimed nothing - and also have no burden. Even in your invisible pink unicorn - you are the one who offered the invisible pink unicorn. Why would I have the burden of proving you wrong?? In that way, you are claiming that uncut is better, right? More sensitive at least? You claim that your uncut state is more sensitive due to more nerve endings. The burden is on you. I claimed nothing except that your statement is not so clear cut because other alternative explanations exist. When I…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:13 PM
1

That is your opinion. When you make a value judgment like "anything like what happens" you are clearly disregarding a lot of my examples as not "like" what happens. So don't give me crap because you want to disregard analogous examples with the body. You want exact. You're the kind of person that wouldn't believe it was possible that the sun revolved around the earth until all possibilities were eliminated.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:11 PM
-1

Think of it like a DSLR camera. You have a sensor. And while sensor size is very important, you can also turn up the sensitivity on a sensor - the gain, through ISO management and get the same type of image based on less input. All the mechanisms are there, they are in place.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:05 PM
-1

Nothing useful? Like your hypothesis that more nerve endings mean more pleasure? I mean, technically speaking there is a maximum amount of pleasure right? When you fill up the biochemical receptors in the brain? Then you can't feel any more pleasure. The same way inhibitor chemicals work through depression, etc. If you can reach that cap by less than a full sensory input, then what use would the additional sensory input have? Once you are blinded by the light, what does adding more light do? Not…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:04 PM
0

Do you have anything empirical to refute it? You know that the brain can reorganize and sense things that aren't even there. There is plenty of support for physical reorganization of the brain and you haven't contradicted it with anything empirical. In fact, while I've written about the brain having different levels of biochemical response to different stimuli, you haven't been able to provide one reason why it couldn't or in fact shouldn't happen. Consider when people can have parts of their br…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 04:00 PM
0

There are thoughts made to back it up. You are aware of brain reorganization, aren't you? I don't have a job here. I don't have a burden. You can not be a skeptic all you want. I never set out to prove a definitive outcome, but to demonstrate that things aren't as clear cut (pardon the word) as the argument may seem at first blush.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:56 PM
0

I didn't say it would remove sensation . . . on the front end, but it sure as hell could amount to nothing on the back end.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:52 PM
-1

What I did say is there are different types of nerves. Moreover, none of them are "sexual" without a brain to interpret it. They are merely PRESSURE sensitive. Pressure = action potential. What I said was that the same level of biochemical response might be triggered in the brain on the basis of fewer nerve endings being stimulated. Think of it like the difference between the one beer drunk versus the guy who can hold his liquor. Same amount of alcohol going in, yet different response in the bod…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:42 PM
-1

The brain is pretty amazing wouldn't you agree? You write "sexual sensation," yet there is no "sexual" nerve ending, is there? In the foreskin it is known as the Meissner's corpuscle which is sensitive to light touch. Also they don't deal with pain ("Meissner's corpuscles do not detect pain"). And those nerve endings that do are also present, but not as much. People can have whole limbs cut off and still feel the sensation of that limb, right? It's called phantom limb, true? People can also lear…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 03:26 PM
-4

EDIT: This is /r/MensRights for you. They down-vote anything that contradicts the prevailing attitudes in this community toward circumcision. Which, may I add, is strictly against reddiquette. I write merely that this community is pro-intact and that studies on the issue suffer from clinical limitations and the down-vote police are out. Look, you take this question to mens rights and you know what answer you're generally going to get. Just like if you took this to /r/rabbisforsocialjudiasm - you…
/r/MensRights29/09/10 12:38 PM
-3

Beware speculation as a basis for counter-point.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 12:31 PM
1

I'm not sure I see the distinction you're drawing. Necessarily speaking, society is protected from rule breakers when you remove them from society. Because necessarily society is protected when you remove them from society, i can't say that "protecting society" doesn't occur when you imprison someone for reasons of "removing them." Whereas you seem to be saying that there is an independent ground to simply "elect[] to remove [wrongdoers] from society." Now, on the flipside, you seem to be saying…
/r/MensRights09/09/10 02:52 AM
1

You're right. That was intended to be covered by incapacitation. Incapacitation protects us from them. When you prevent recidivism, you are removing people from society so they can't commit crimes against the other parts of society. True that what I said may not apply to the situation of crime against criminals, but incapacitation is yes a removal from society.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 11:59 PM
2

I take issue with the journalistic strength of this article. I think it is an absolute shame that so much was taken away from this man, and if all the allegations are true, it is a miscarriage of justice to keep anyone away from family and work. The problem is the linked article is a summary of a summary written by an advocacy group. That advocacy organization, the EJF. There is nothing inherently wrong about the EJF so far as I know - I don't know them as an organization. However, I recognize t…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 10:22 PM
1

DV restraining order at the federal level? The federal government was shut down on passing a law about holding firearms near schools as a felon. In striking it down, it was written that having a gun near schools doesn't affect interstate commerce. What in the hell does a DV restraining order have to do with interstate commerce? It certainly isn't a taxing power.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 10:13 PM
2

As far as I'm aware it is fairly rare. Federal RICO statutes are one example. Even that California Civil Code Section is very particular about how you can get treble damages. It says basically (without serious complicated stuff): If someone writes you a bad check, you write them by certified mail demand payment in the amount of the check and any charges you incurred by trying to cash the bad check. Not treble damages tell them there is a statute that entitles you to treble damages a warning if t…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 04:53 PM
1

I certainly agree with what you've said. I just think that we need to go back to Hobbes-ian and Locke-ian view of the social contract to understand what a repeat criminal offender is. Because there are two basic types of criminals, right? By necessity: those who commit no crimes are not criminals, those who commit one crime and those who commit many crimes. Now I am taking in this definition that a crime is when someone is convicted by the state: the it's not a crime if you don't get caught view…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:50 PM
1

Rehabilitation is only one of the potential purposes for prisons and the criminal law. There are at least a few other widely discussed and respected purposes for law: Retributive criminal theory - punishment to the individual for his wrongdoing as a sort of moral reprobation Rehabilitative criminal theory - to "cure" the person who committed a wrongdoing Incapacitation - to lock up the person who committed the wrongdoing to increase the safety of others or to prevent recidivism General deterrenc…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:30 PM
2

Some game theory-type, expected value calculation as applied to criminal deterrence: probability of prosecution * value of punishment As an alternative, lets up the punishment to 50 years. Either value can be changed to increase deterrence, so long as either is not nominal or negligable
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:20 PM
2

Wait, what? Where is the civil standard treble damages? (means triple)
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:14 PM
1

Now, if he knew he was infected with something and they caught something and he intended to infect them. That's something. But if he simply refused, and they said: ok screw it and lets go do this anyway, that's a bit sad. In the end, you only have your principles until you violate them once, and then you have no principles.
/r/MensRights29/08/10 04:59 PM
1

Eraser - free software solution that can perform military protocol secure erase. After one pass it becomes really difficult, after 20-something passes, forensic data recovery is nearly impossible to recover even with advanced surface scanning recovery tools. I've saved you the cost of an old microwave and the cost of buying a new hard drive. Where can I send the invoice?
/r/MensRights20/08/10 04:37 AM
1

Only hang out with alphas! Orgy porgy orgy porgy!
/r/MensRights20/08/10 04:35 AM
1

There is an open source/freeware solution called Eraser that will run not only free space erasure but also secure file deletion in many of the numerous deletion protocols (military and non-military). You can schedule regular empty space erasing. Further, there is another free solution called PC Inspector File Recovery that allows you to find many deleted files on hard drives, even on corrupted partitions and quick-formatted drives. These two programs can be used to verify that all searches and o…
/r/MensRights20/08/10 04:30 AM
1

Hi - its (one of the) the guy(s) from the other post. I'm glad that it sounds like your day wasn't simply an explosion. It sounds like everyone was generally civil. I'm sorry that she tried to leverage your time and religion like that, that is a terrible thing to do. It is tough for some people who feel like they're entitled to things - entitled to a private education. A kid with parents who care and take an interest in homework and education and instill positive study habits and model good home…
/r/MensRights11/08/10 01:35 PM
1

If your argument is about how "imputed income" is calculated incorrectly - that is one thing and I might agree with you in most cases. If your argument is that "imputed income" is wrong in all cases and in all circumstances, then you're nuts. Which is it? You're not looking at the limited facts as the OP presented them: he had a second job and then no longer has a second job. We don't know whether he was working 60 hours a week or 40. From your argument, I have to assume that you think the OP wa…
/r/MensRights11/08/10 03:05 AM
2

I mean, a restraint and physical violence against you is evidence that they have forced themselves upon you. So I think you could say on those facts you mentioned that you were resisting. But compare that with the only evidence being ripped pantyhose which might be proof of force, but could also be kinky consensual panty-hose type sex. The point being: on its face it isn't necessarily conclusive of a bad act. What can the courts read from simply a torn pantyhose? A person who wants to call it ra…
/r/MensRights11/08/10 02:54 AM
5

To start, I upvoted you because I think your comment was a valuable addition to the discussion. However (and actually), some states define rape to require resistance or lack thereof (for a criminal charge; or at least used to). In fact, there is probably no crime other than rape that has more variation of definition based on what the victim does: force, resistance (must have scrapes and bruises or does saying no meet the resistance), consent (affirmative or passive consent), fear of immediate ha…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 11:28 PM
1

Wow. You gotta know I wasn't advocating for one position over another. I was merely describing what I believe to be things actively considered by the courts under the present system. I was only offering a view as to why the request might ultimately be denied. It is not my anything - least of all my feminist social engineering project. I can't say I'm a feminist (and I know me), so neither can you. I was not saying that as a matter of policy the child support system was good as is. I agree with y…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 10:50 PM
-2

EDIT: wow angry downvote brigades here. I happen to be a man (if that stops some downvotes) and the below doesn't mean I think any of it is right - in fact I express no personal opinion on the rightness or wrongness. I am merely trying to describe my very limited understanding of the predominant rationale as might be applied in courts today. If you can't respect what is an attempt to analyze the current situation, then you're not thinking intellectually. Regardless of the merits of either positi…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 11:49 AM
0

One of the other commenters has a good point: the courts sometimes try to maintain the child's standard of living and the non-monied spouse's standard of living, even if the monied spouse's standard of living decreases. (most often the husband) Where here your income dropped, I think people may (because I have no way of knowing) look at a few things: 1) how much you should be earning with your abilities/skills (so that a father can't quit a job as a banker and start at Denny's so his child suppo…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 02:08 AM
1

Unfortunately, your conclusion doesn't follow. There are two flaws in the reasoning and I'll take each separately. This is the first problem statement: that would indeed establish the probability of a randomly chosen woman lying to be 99%. It doesn't establish that this woman is in the 99% or 1%. You said random, and that is fine. But random is not the standard for a trial against a specific person. You need to put into evidence something relevant to this particular witness/woman. Even assuming …
/r/MensRights04/05/10 10:23 PM
2

You've understood a good part of it, but the next step is crucial. To answer your first question: 1) No, I don't believe the expert in this case should only testify after the jury decides guilt. 2) The judge made the right call in disallowing expert testimony on whether people lie about rape. Think about tying things to the reporting witness. The defense attempted to offer expert testimony that people lie about rape. Perhaps this example will make it clear (bear with the hypothetical): Assume th…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:55 PM
1

Whether something is being faked or not, then becomes a question for the jury to determine. You're not missing anything, you're just confusing whose job it is at that point. The same way if you tried an insanity defense. An expert on either side will say: she has this disease or she doesn't. But ultimately, whether the defendant is lying is a question for the jury.
/r/MensRights04/05/10 02:38 PM
3

Trials are peculiar places with peculiar rules. Credibility (whether someone is telling the truth or lying) is a question solely for the jury. A lawyer cannot on summation say: "I believe X is lying" and neither can a judge say "I believe X is lying." In fact, experts cannot say "I believe X is lying." A first-hand witness can say: "I saw it with my own eyes differently than X. That's why I think she's lying." But the jury can weigh the credibility of the first-hand witness and X, and only the j…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 04:09 AM
3

The distinction that is important to draw deals with the pathology of post-traumantic stress / post-rape syndromes. It would be like a psychologist telling you that anger and rage issues are common in war related PTSD. Where there are observable and confirmable symptoms that reliably appear in post-rape cases, we're talking about a very specific trigger and result: rape, and a delay. EDIT: I want to be clear. If there is no real science to the syndrome, then it would not be admissible either. Wh…
/r/MensRights04/05/10 04:03 AM
1

So the troopers were there again tonight, but this time I asked them about it. Seemed like the smart thing to do. They suggested that they could set them up to check for registration and inspections and seatbelts and similar things. I double checked the Supreme Court case law on that and provided certain limitations and conditions are followed through, it sounds like the Supreme Court would uphold the practice. Funny how one tiny little exception to the 4th amendment now swallows the rule. Anywh…
/r/MensRights08/04/10 04:47 AM
3

Although, I admit that I find your response a little unclear, I think I get your point. I mention that because my response may not be targeted at your fundamental point as a result. I think you're incorrect for two reasons. First, lets situate ourselves in the statute. The beginning of the statute reads: Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: Therefore, the specific provisions we're dealing with…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 01:38 PM
1

I imagine those types of cases are really difficult, not only as a legal matter, but as a personal matter.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:53 AM
1

haha, I wouldn't argue with you about not deserving a ticket, and I agree that that can be annoying. Hopefully I limited my comments specifically to how you are empowered to go about your job as a general matter. Hopefully that's a touch less annoying, like: do you do a walk-around of your cruiser (assuming you have one and are on patrol) before you leave every day. (Police Quest 2 back in DOS days taught me I needed to do this or I would lose the game practically before starting). There were no…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:50 AM
1

Oh, and there are some cases about people giving their girlfriends the clap (in tort law) so the civil world, not criminal. Here's a link to one in Florida and here is one of the relevant phrases quoted: Hogan's consent, if without the knowledge that Tavzel was infected with a sexually transmitted disease, was the equivalent of no consent, and would not be a defense to the battery charge if successfully proven. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=112036035860666909&q=Hogan+v.+Tavzel&hl=e…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:41 AM
1

OH GOODIE i need to ask you a question! I just got stopped at a highway offramp while a bunch of state troopers examined my car for registration/inspection purposes. I was fine because I actually register my car and get my car inspected, but there were two other people pulled over to the side of the road. I know that the supreme court has authorized stops for DUI and things like that. I also am pretty sure that I have no general expectation of privacy when it comes to the in plain sight things r…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:35 AM
0

I absolutely agree - they are necessary, but not sufficient as the people studying for the LSAT would say.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:32 AM
4

Ah, but that generalizes too much. What is the act consented to? The act consented to was not sex, but sex with a condition. Also, as I wrote to the above poster, it is unlikely to read "essential characteristic of the act" to be synonymous with "sexual intercourse" because that would create a redundancy between section (1) of that statute and its subsection (4) which defines a manner in which the sexual intercourse can become rape.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:31 AM
2

I'll deal with this in two parts, first I'll dispose of the STD question and second, tackle the "essential characteristic of the act" question. As to the STD we differ. When dealing with consent, it all comes down to things like informed consent. You can either consent or take a knowing risk of getting an STD, but not the other way around: you cannot be subjected to that risk without your consent. Think waiver of liability clauses for dangerous activities (see: scuba diving, sky diving, etc.) th…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:28 AM
-1

not at all - he issued an upvote for only two stated reasons: reading and quoting. I was saying that those two activities alone are necessary, but not sufficient to say someone deserves an upvote legally speaking. In truth, while reading the statute is critical (Frankfurter as a professor said the three rules of statutory interpretation are: 1) read the statute, 2) read the statute, 3) read the statute), ultimately the value to this forum is an interpretation that harmonizes your conclusion with…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:10 AM
1

Read my analysis here It was in response to a question of CA law, but the basic concepts apply: scope of consent, fraud, etc. The problem is, different states apply vastly different standards to the question of rape. As I recall, New Jersey is one state that has a pretty low bar for what they call rape.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 12:32 AM
-7

Reading and quoting the law without interpreting is like a carpenter bringing a hammer, nails and wood to a plot of land and calling the pile of them a house. EDIT: I'm getting downvoted because I was being "deep." My implied conclusion was vague. The carpenter can still finish the house. What is a value of a pile of wood and nails and hammers? A few thousand? What is the value of a home? 100 times that? Turning it into a home is what adds substantial value. What I am saying is: the job is incom…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 12:28 AM
8

Why does (4)(c) not apply? It appears that (4)(C) does apply to the facts above. The law says it will be rape when a person is unconscious of the nature of the act. Under subsection C that includes a person who is not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact. In the example above, a man removed a condom without telling the woman that he was removing it, in essence hiding this fact from her. As a result, the woman was "not aware" of the nature of …
/r/MensRights07/04/10 12:22 AM
2

i love the sentence right before the sign off: "His biggest fear is that he'll lose his income altogether because he'll be locked up again . . . in jail." Seriously, the journalist needed to clarify where the guy would be locked up?
/r/MensRights28/03/10 01:59 AM
2

John Stossel is a weird libertarian-Randian One of his first episodes of his new show will be devoted to an archetype from Atlas shrugged. Most people got over the Rand phase after high school. Admittedly it took some longer (see: Alan Greenspan)
/r/MensRights12/12/09 07:38 AM
6

We taste good with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti?
/r/MensRights07/12/09 07:11 AM
1

Hmm, couple this with the fact that Indiana has 7th highest percentage of smokers by population, 14th highest percentage of obesity, and the 7th lowest percentage of people with college degrees. Before the nut attacks, I was thinking of moving there but this puts it over the line!
/r/MensRights26/11/09 03:38 AM
1

Upvoted for diacritics!
/r/MensRights09/11/09 04:25 AM
-7

Against your will? Like when you had the will not to poop in your diaper but your arse shat against your will? Heh. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 01:42 PM
1

Read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World - actually the first few pages so you won't have to read so far. Deals with artificial wombs.
/r/MensRights03/10/09 10:24 AM
1

Iron rusts
/r/MensRights03/10/09 05:23 AM
0

Or a Jamaican! What alcohol should we take Mr. Jamaican? Decorum?
/r/MensRights03/10/09 05:22 AM
1

OMG there's hysterical reporting? That's outrageous!
/r/MensRights01/10/09 07:40 PM
6

You must have gotten your rape kit done before 2000. Now men can be raped in New York by either a man or a woman! Before, a woman could not be charged with rape because the statute said "A male," but in 2000, the statute was amended to "a person." As a result, now a woman can be charged with rape. Additionally, the statute was amended to say another person instead of specifying sex. New York Penal law Section 130 covers sex offenses : § 130.25 Rape in the third degree. A person is guilty of rape…
/r/MensRights20/08/09 04:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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