TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

calderons Archive

View 1 post and 30 comments by calderons 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)
0

Questioncalderons/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:40 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

In most states an unwed father has no rights to his child whatsoever outside of a putative father registry. Would you not agree that unmarried fathers are not expected (as much as the married fathers) to be in the life of the child? Courts give, at best, a slap on the wrist for women failing to turn over the children for visitation yet a man will go to prison for not paying support What evidence is there for this claim about different treatment, in a biased way? you can thank feminists for makin…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 05:36 PM
1

Yes - you can look up an example in this very thread (as it is usually the case with such questions and threads): http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26nx8s/can_we_limit_feminist_bashing/chsszjo
/r/MensRights28/05/14 07:44 AM
2

Look no further than this very thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/26nx8s/can_we_limit_feminist_bashing/chsszjo
/r/MensRights28/05/14 07:44 AM
1

Oh boy, you got me. Clearly I am wrong, and you are right, and you must feel great. /s I don't understand, is that supposed to be a rebuttal? It seems kind of disingenuous to dismiss criticism of your claims with just sarcasm. You are claiming that you would not impose a moral code on others. What else but morality itself would justify that? I have never seen such a dance around words, ended with a sarcastic dismissal instead of an attempt to explain. You say we must use effective definitions, y…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 09:48 PM
1

We do not apply subjective qualifications to behaviour. I am not sure I understand. Are you claiming that your evaluation of behavior is purely objective? By what standard? So if I am reading you right, there are two issues at play: that your evaluation of behavior is purely objective. that policing behavior is not enforcement of moral principles. Tell me, isn't there a bijection between moral norms, and norms of behavior? Can you point me to a norm of behavior that is amoral? How is your assess…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 09:22 PM
1

We do not ban or remove insults unless they go into the realm of harassment or trolling, in which case that is a behavioural issue and not a moral issue. That is a very interesting interpretation. Isn't morality strongly concerned with behavior? Even the name itself means proper behavior... "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wro…
/r/MensRights12/05/14 08:51 PM
1

Banning such things is tantamount to imposing a moral code on others. Are you saying you are not imposing a moral code of any kind in /r/mensrights? Aren't arguments against equality of rights, per se, mod actionable? What about insults, or transphobia/homophobia/etc?
/r/MensRights12/05/14 06:52 PM
2

My claim comes from readings of several pages on the Stanford Enc. I am not going to dig through them. Will you withdraw your claim then, or admit it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion (at least so far)? Or is it true merely because you claim it so? Please also clarify which of the following currents are, or are not, well established in the academia (and in which country) - they are quite different from each other: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminist_movements_and_ideologies
/r/MensRights10/04/14 08:51 PM
3

I am mostly going by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Feminism. Please show the relevant Stanford Enc. entry where it says what you claimed about feminism: "At its core, feminism is founded on several principles: 1. the belief in the existence of an overarching patriarchal formulation of current political and social systems, 2. the denouncement of the patriarchy, 3. the denouncement of traditional systems of ethics, law and governance. It is a chicken-and-egg situation often, such that "patriarchy h…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 07:59 PM
2

The ideology of feminism is well established in academia. Which of the types of feminisms do you actually mean? Here is a handy list: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminist_movements_and_ideologies . Which are "well established" and which aren't? And on which peer review are you basing your conclusion on what is established or not, or are you simply posting opinions as facts? I am curious what you believe is academically established. Also, you are talking just about US, or? Sources for…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:40 PM
6

I completely agree that if feminists acted individually, the entire group should not be viewed negatively based on the actions of that few. Plenty of feminists act individually, and there is a huge variance of ideology between feminists, and very few actually are as you describe them. Furthermore, there are plenty of men/women/black people who act as a group. Why are you applying a double standard then, about obligation to prevent other people to view them negatively? Can you tell me if there is…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 01:33 PM
4

It is black people's job to prevent people from viewing black people negatively? It is women's/men's job to prevent people from viewing them negatively? So, is it feminists' job to prevent people from viewing feminists negatively?
/r/MensRights10/04/14 11:08 AM
2

You are missing the context, in my opinion. The father has to pay in the interest of the child. If there was no child, requiring various expenses, there would be no obligation to pay. If due to any reason the child is no longer present in the picture (maturity, adoption, etc), the obligation ceases.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 09:33 AM
0

BUT, who put the child in that position? Both parents, by default. So, if you want to talk about morality, tell me why the mother isn't morally accountable for having the child when there are other options knowing the father doesn't want to be involved? What happens before birth is irrelevant for this discussion, due to bodily autonomy and integrity. Second, abortion may not actually be an option in some cases. I'll address the other bit next. This isn't about "does the child have a right to be …
/r/MensRights27/01/14 08:28 AM
1

Does that also apply to adoption? That isn't the same as the default situation, where the biological parents are no longer the legal parents. So can you address my initial question instead?
/r/MensRights27/01/14 08:24 AM
4

but i feel like a financial abortion only punishes the child. As far as I know, this is also the reason why the law would not allow financial abortion.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:34 PM
1

Why do you think then that a father is obligated to pay?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:33 PM
1

An adopted child doesn't have any financial rights from biological parents. Because those rights have been assumed by somebody else, so this does not apply to our case. Presume I am SCOTUS. What legal arguments can you present to me that would convince me to override a child's right to being supported by both parents (as long as they do not lose their status as a parent)? Actually, any child has no 'rights' to claim from their parents biological or otherwise Sure they do. Not taking care of the …
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:32 PM
2

You keep talking about the childs rights, but I don't think you know what you're talking about My point is that it is irrelevant to invoke the rights of the mother when the legal obligation to support the child stems from the right of the child to be supported by both parents.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 10:13 PM
0

It is the guardian/caregiver/whoever wants the responsibility to fund that child. Perhaps that is how you wish that things were, but right now, the child does have that right - to be supported by both parents. Why do you claim that the child does not have it though? From a moral or legal point of view? What overrides said right of the child (which is not hypothetical at this point, it is already a part of the law)?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:52 PM
2

Again, a child has no rights to be supported by it's biological parents It definitely has that right legally now. Why do you claim that the child does not have it though? From a moral or legal point of view? What overrides said right of the child (which is not hypothetical at this point, it is already a part of the law).
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:50 PM
2

So what about the other options open to the mother? Irrelevant, since we are not talking about equalizing rights between parents, but about the rights of the child.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:32 PM
1

Does that same logic apply to adoption? No, because a lump of cell is not synonymous with a born human.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 08:17 PM
0

No, that's why single parent households exist and single mothers and fathers aren't mandated to get married, marry again, never divorce/separate/etc... I am not asking about the legal status of the relationship between the parents, but about the rights of the child. What you said is irrelevant to that question, as financial obligations can exist towards the child regardless of the parents being together/separated/married.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 03:57 PM
-3

No. If the woman wants a child and the father does not and she decides to keep the child, that is on her. She still has all the optioned mentioned by others: morning after, abortion, adoption, etc. It might be a little different if the guy got her pregnant, asked her to keep it, then left after a few years. Other than that, its completely on her. I don't see how this addresses my question at all. You talk about the options of the mother, when I am asking about the rights of the child. So, again:…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:10 PM
2

Abortion means that you don't get to make this argument. After all, if a kid deserves money, he or she must surely deserve to draw fucking breath. False equivalency. The rights of a bunch of cells do not match the results of a born human.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 02:08 PM
-2

Why is this about women and not the child? Does the child not have the right to being supported by both parents, once it comes into this world?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 12:09 PM
1

His point is that it is reprehensible to misrepresent a phenomenon that affects multiple groups of people as a problem for only one group. Fathers rights only affects men, so that's why don't advocate for female fathers. That's some selective representation of issues. Parenthood, custody, alimony, etc. affect mothers/women as well - same as violence/sexual violence affects other groups as well besides women. Same as father's groups can focus their campaigns on some issues (even if those issues a…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:58 PM
5

This is such a horrible practice, it drives me up a wall when I see posters around campus up about female sex trafficking and no mention of boys. How can you ignore an entire demographic?? How? Much like fathers' rights groups focus on men? Or is it ok when it concerns men's issues only?
/r/MensRights14/11/13 06:06 PM
1

Would you mind explaining what "not T", "limits explode the topic", "aff", "K isn't topical" mean please? I tried googling them, but after perusing several glossaries, I am none the wiser - thanks.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 06:43 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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