TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

burnerphone5 Archive

View 0 posts and 48 comments by burnerphone5 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)
3

Women initiate the vast majority of divorces so giving any value to that line for either gender is a bit of a stretch.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/03/22 04:30 PM
1

I specified after conception, try to keep up.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/21 11:23 AM
2

I am pro choice. Women can choose to be mothers or not after conception. Men should also have that choice, right now they have no autonomy in that area.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/21 11:07 PM
0

"If you allow women to back out of pregnancy the vast majority of kids won't grow up"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/21 06:16 PM
1

What's worse, not existing or not having your biological dad in the picture. The former is worse since anyone can stop existing whenever they want of their own volition. Men abandoning children is more fair to the kids then sucking them into a vacuum cleaner.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/21 04:49 PM
2

Women have 0 responsibility to take care of their children, so for equality to exist men should also have 0 responsibility to take care of their children.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/12/21 04:46 PM
-4

Nipples
/r/MensRights03/08/21 09:26 PM
-7

Sure, that's why I said the courts are biased against men. I mean public nudity as in women can't go topless like men can.
/r/MensRights03/08/21 07:17 PM
-15

Public nudity laws give men priviledge. But I think that's mostly offset by how underprivileged men are in the court system.
/r/MensRights03/08/21 06:12 PM
16

Gummy smiles
/r/PurplePillDebate22/06/21 06:06 PM
1

Agreed. Idk why that guy tagged you but I'm glad. You're the most reasonable person I've seen respond to these points.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 08:38 PM
1

So if a woman gives birth who is unmarried, she will get full custody of the child unless she voluntarily gives partial custody to someone (the biological father). If the father is not given custody from the mother, he will have to go to court to plead his case for why he wants/deserves custody. Women NEVER have to do that, because they have a legal right to their child based purely on biology. Men do not have this right. It's not fighting for custody in court that I am saying is sexist, it's ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 08:19 PM
1

I am not talking about custody in a divorce, but biological custody. Women have biological custody, in that they have a right to their child purely due to the biological relationship. However men do not, and custody is granted through the mother, mariage, or the court. For men and women to be equal by law, men should get 50% custody at birth due to biology if they are the biological father.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 08:08 PM
1

FGM can be more severe, but if you look at a venn diagram of the possible negative impacts of both procedures they would completely overlap. Both can result in death, loss of genital function, and loss in sensitivity. They should obviously both be illegal to do without concent, glad we agree there. World male circumcision rate is estimated to be 37-39%. At 50.4% of the world population being male, that is a huge # of circumcisions. Most circumcisions occur at birth or before the age of majority,…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 07:50 PM
1

Yeah true, public nudity laws are sexist.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 07:33 PM
1

So you agree in the USA women have more rights than men by law?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 06:17 PM
2

Women have a right to genital integrity at birth . Female Circumcision is illegal, and male circumcision is explicitly legal. Men have to sign up for selected service to gain citizenship, student loans, etc. Women are legally exempt from the selective service. Those two laws alone prove it. There are also more unclear ones, like women being able to opt out of parenthood legally (abortion) and men having no legal right to do so (financial abortion). Also custody by default goes to the mother, and…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 05:42 PM
2

It's not even gender neutral, women have more rights encoded in the law than men do. Women literally have more rights than men and society does jack about it because lawmakers will only listen to radical feminist theory.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 05:04 PM
1

She wasn't drinking or in possession of alcohol. So the arrest was unlawful to begin with.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/06/21 04:28 PM
0

Alright, so you concede that she did in fact not have to identify herself?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 08:05 PM
2

Yeah, the best thing would have been to just refuse ID then comply when they arrest you. The officer also never initially told her she was under arrest, he just said "get over here". I think it could be argued that in this case the police unlawfully assaulted her first, since they did not communicate she was under arrest. I think she got 1 year probation for the assault charge, and a 300+K settlement in her civil suit from the city for the unlawful arrest. It's stupid to me how you can be charge…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 08:00 PM
1

The police are in the wrong, they had no reasonable articulable suspicion of crime being committed. The police had no lawful authority to demand her to ID to begin with, let alone take a breathalyzer.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:43 PM
1

She had no obligation to even take the breathalyzer, let alone identify herself. The police had no reasonable articulable suspicion that the alcohol was hers, so they had no lawful authority to demand ID.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:40 PM
3

Refusing to ID is only unlawful if the police have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. In this case the police had no evidence the alcohol was hers to begin with, so they had now lawful authority to demand her to identify herself.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:39 PM
2

It was an unjustified arrest. he police had no reasonable articulable suspicion that the alcohol was hers, so they had no right to even demand ID to begin with. The police literally arrested her for not giving them her name, when she was just using her lawful right to remain silent.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:37 PM
-3

The police literally violated her rights as an American citizen. The police are the only criminals here, the girl didn't do anything.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:34 PM
0

You are deranged, this girl literally did not do anything against the law.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:33 PM
3

It's not required anywhere in the USA. Reasonable suspicion protects civilians from police harassment in every state, not just New Jersey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes#Reasonable_suspicion
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:31 PM
0

Very obviously related, but I will spell it out for you here. You said "...detain her for refusing to identify herself..." But failing to identify is not a legal way to justify detaining someone. You are only compelled to ID if you are driving a vehicle on public roadways or if the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. In this video the girl did not do anything against the law, and the police had zero reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:29 PM
3

No you don't. There are only 2 situations you can be compelled to show ID to the police. The first is if you are operating a motor vehicle on public roadways, which she was not. The second situation for you to be compelled to ID yourself is if the police have reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime being committed. In this case, the women was not committing a crime, and the police did not have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed, therefore she did not have to provide…
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 07:21 PM
1

She doesn't have to identify herself. Ever heard of the right to remain silent?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 06:40 PM
3

No it's not. You have the right to remain silent obviously. Why are you commenting if you don't know what you are talking about?
/r/PussyPassDenied01/06/21 06:37 PM
2

Men have less rights than women in my country. That's very obviously legal oppression of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/21 05:08 PM
2

That is frankly a very stupid and elementary argument. I get that your penis still works, but it is a matter of fact that it doesn't work as well. Do you need lotion to jerk off like many cut men? That's a very clear example of how the function of your penis was damaged. It's like if you were born colorblind so you want to surgically make your son the same way because of tradition, it makes no logical or moral sense. I know you can't see my perspective well since you were cut, but if you spend t…
/r/MensRights31/03/21 07:30 PM
4

You can't remove nerves then claim no loss in sensitivity. It is literally biologically impossible. Watch the video please. There is absolutely a chance he will die. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-47292307 That could be your son in the future you mutilating brute.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 07:16 PM
6

Do you think FGM is good because it can remove the over sensitive clitoris? I seriously have never heard a more stupid argument. You don't have a moral compass, so I am going to disengage with you. Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy, you are ethically and morally wrong for denying that right to your children. https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0 Watch this video to educate yourself on your evil opinion.
/r/MensRights31/03/21 07:06 PM
4

He might never care about it. He might love it and call intact people anteater dicks. He might hate it and try to get it reversed. It might get botched and he could die or lose more of his penis than his foreskin. But the one thing that is constant is that his penis will always be less sensitive (less nerves) and less functional (more lubrication required for intercourse). I suggest you watch this video: https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0 It should give you a VERY complete image of the reasons for and…
/r/MensRights31/03/21 06:51 PM
4

The risks (death, loss of genitalia, loss of sensitivity) do not out weight the benefits (takes 0.5 seconds less to clean in the shower). Let your child remain intact as evolution intended. Have you ever wondered why nobody circumcised pets or farm animals "to prevent infection".
/r/MensRights31/03/21 06:30 PM
4

UTI's in girls are treated with modern medicine, not brutal mutilation. Circumcision is not a balanced treatment for UTI's, and it actively ignores 3/4 of the tenants of medical ethics. Infant phimosis is not a thing, boys must learn to retract their foreskin over time, babies naturally have their foreskin partially fused to the glands. Acute phimosis should be treated with stretching and modern medicine, not unnecessary mutilation. You mutilated your kids, and you might think that you did the r…
/r/MensRights31/03/21 06:28 PM
2

I posted about this on r/Canada I got all my comments removed by authoritarian feminist mods who couldn't handle the fact that women have more rights than men do in Canada.
/r/MensRights10/03/21 02:41 AM
1

Sole custody is not relevant to my argument that women have the default right to custody and men do not. Thus this is 1 more right women have over men. Obviously men can't force women to have abortions, I never said such a thing. For equality, men should be able to financially abort the child, or absolve themselves of any financial or legal obligations to the child. Women have this right, and men should too because this is 1 right women have over men. Men carrying children has no bearing on the …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/19 08:07 PM
1

Statutory Custody and Access Arrangements After Birth of a Child Section 50 of the Domestic Relations Act provides that the mother is always a guardian of a child. Guardianship of the father is not necessarily based upon cohabitation with the mother after the birth of the child, but on the nature and extent of the father's relationship with the mother. If the father is a guardian, the mother and father are joint guardians, each able to exercise full powers of guardians, unless their authority is…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/19 11:17 AM
1

USA/Canada: Women have the legal right to be protected from unnecessary cosmetic surguries at birth (circumcision of girls is illegal). Women have the legal right to be the default owner of custody in the case of divorce/separation. Women have the legal right to opt out of parental responsibilities at any stage in child development (abortion/adoption). Men cannot choose to opt out of parenthood after conception, women always have that right. In the USA only: Women have the right to vote and take…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/11/19 01:52 AM
1

Yes legally they have more rights
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 10:05 PM
1

It doesn't matter what you or I believe, the equality in the eyes of the law (equal rights) is what matters. Happiness is impossible if you are opressed by your society under the excuse of stability. That is how slavery and multiple genocides were justfied.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 02:46 PM
1

Why do you place so much value on order and stability instead of happiness of population. Your same line of reason is easily extrapolated to terrible countries like China, who enforce religious persecution under the guise of "order and stability". Equality is a tennant of modern democratic society and executive power of government is a different scenario because it is supposed to be given by the population as a necesary measure to enforce the law. Inequality between races or genders or religions…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 02:18 PM
1

Why, because you think it is impossible to achieve? Or because inequality benefits you?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 02:00 PM
1

Women in America and Canada have more rights than men so how can you justify that progressing towards true equality will make things worse?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/11/19 01:45 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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