TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

cooj Archive

View 1 posts and 69 comments by cooj 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)
7

cooj/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:03 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

It's not hypocrisy. One stupid law isn't enough to justify another stupid law. OMG WOMEN GET TO BE BITCHES AND OPT OUT OF PARENTHOOD SO MEN SHOULD TOO LOL. Where's the justice in that for the child? You're trying to bring men level with women where women have already overstepped their bounds.
/r/MensRights24/10/11 01:06 PM
1

Hadn't really thought about that, maybe they should until it's adopted?
/r/MensRights24/10/11 01:05 PM
0

I'm arguing for equality, too. You want equality by changing one law, I want equality by changing another. What's the difference? The only reason people are for financial abortions is because there's an inequality there, and we're simply proposing two different ways to change that inequality. You may think my way is just fantasy, and actually, you're probably right, but that doesn't change the fact that I think it's the BETTER WAY. I don't think women should kill unborn children, and I don't thi…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:11 PM
0

There is no hypocrisy. If women lost the ability to choose unilaterally (either abortion or to give up their child for adoption), and men continued to have to pay child support for children they didn't want, it's all equal. Mothers have to be mothers and fathers have to be fathers.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:15 PM
1

Well it doesn't really hurt my argument to be wrong on this point. Just because there's an unjust law that benefits women doesn't mean we should make a parallel unjust law to benefit men.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 06:05 PM
2

Should we force women to be mothers because their birth control failed? No, and we should not do the same to fathers. You obviously didn't read my first post past where I said I don't think men should be able to have financial abortions. I'm pro-life. I can see how a person who identifies as pro-choice would be all for financial abortions, it only makes sense. EDIT: And I OBVIOUSLY didn't read your whole post before I responded to that first paragraph, sorry about that :-). For the sake of argum…
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:59 PM
2

However, I do not feel this should be reflected in the law. What part of my post were you referencing here?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:32 PM
1

The woman can force a man into becoming a father. I guess in rape cases this is true, but I don't see any women getting child support in cases where they raped a man and got pregnant. You can always wear a condom, and ergo, you are always responsible for your own birth control. I know condoms break, but that's a risk you take when you have sex IMO. Again, I know that most people don't agree with me here, and I'm not stating this as indisputable fact, just my own opinion on the matter. Maybe the …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 03:31 PM
-5

My answer is no, men should NOT have the right to financial abortions. I consider myself a pretty dedicated MRA, but I have different opinion on this issue than most of you, which probably stems from having a different opinion on abortion than most of you. I don't want to get into the abortion debate here (if you care to know what I think, feel free to look into my past comments), but I think I have a pretty well-reasoned position. I think abortion is wrong in every case except to save the life …
/r/MensRights21/10/11 01:46 PM
8

One of the type of redditor to avoid: NotTheHumanTornado
/r/MensRights16/09/11 09:42 PM
12

What's lacking here is the empathetic coddling of inane bullshit that you find almost everywhere else in society. When you're wrong on this subreddit, someone will probably tell you in a logical and direct way. This place appears hostile to many people (read: women), but it feels like a safe haven to me. I can be direct and say what I mean on this subreddit, which is great.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 08:54 PM
4

I don't think the general attitude here is "never get married or have kids" (though that is certainly the attitude of some here). I think the general attitude is something like, "be very wary of giving another person a huge amount of control and influence over the rest of your life". It's been proven over and over that a woman can make life a living hell for a man using a few simple weapons she has in her arsenal: The family court system will side with her unless there is a provable, significant…
/r/MensRights01/09/11 09:38 PM
3

That's a terrible situation to be in, I'm sorry about that man. Unfortunately for me I wasn't lucky enough to see the crazy until a few years after I got married to my high school sweetheart. I dealt with almost the exact same thing though. After I found out she had been cheating on me for over a year, she looked pretty bad in the eyes of the few family members and friends we chose to tell. I didn't find out until it was too late that she was telling people that I was physically and "emotionally…
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:01 PM
1

A feminist asks you to act out rape on her and be as authentic as possible... and you don't know where to go with that???
/r/MensRights01/09/11 05:46 PM
2

Yeah I guess you're right. It still seems a little bit off that it would be a misdemeanor (or barely a felony) to destroy someone's fetus.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 01:15 PM
5

I was helping him with his definition, not stating my own. I evidently wasn't precise enough. If you want to get into this, we can. I've been around this block a few times before... What really matters is personhood. Personhood requires humanity, a unique genetic code for individuality, and inhabitation (complex moral term that basically means the thing carves out space for itself). All three are required on my definition, but some people like to say that chimps/dolphins/crows can have personhoo…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:14 PM
2

Yes, unique human genetic code. Wasn't precise enough.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:57 PM
0

You're making your argument very poorly. What you're trying to say is that an unique genetic code is what distinguishes human individuals. A fetus has an unique genetic code, and is therefore a human individual.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:15 PM
1

You don't have a point.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 08:15 PM
1

I am pretty damn free.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 06:11 PM
1

I'm not talking about badgering, I'm talking about her submitting to what would be a government mandate forcing paternity tests at birth. People love to prove that they're right, so anyone who isn't fucking around on the side would have no problem with submitting to the test. Anyone who has a problem with it (even if they give some excuse about privacy or being offended) is more likely to have something to hide.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 03:42 PM
3

It's a good thing to trust your wife, but it's irrational to be 100% sure she'll never cheat on you. You can never know another human being that well. Statistics show that well over 50% of marriages are affected by the infidelity of at least one spouse, and some put the number as high as 70%. Based on other posts here, it seems reasonable to assume that paternity tests would cost hospitals between $50 and $100 per baby. It is also reasonable to assume that at least 1 in 100 men would find out th…
/r/MensRights19/08/11 07:29 PM
1

I went over this with the person I was originally talking to, but you apparently are too lazy to read the entire discussion. So it looks like I'll be spending some time in the next few days rehashing the discussion with you. Twins do not have the same genetic code (even identical twins). Google could have saved you that mistake.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 02:05 PM
1

The person I was arguing with agreed that the fetus is individuated. Aside from that, it actually IS an individual, and not part of the woman's body. It has it's own genetic code, which is what our society uses to determine identity.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:35 PM
0

Wow, trying to make any sense out of that comment will be tricky. Haha, I'm not sure if I get your metaphor. Is the gun the woman? Or the head?? The gun is the uterus, the gun owner is the woman. From a pro-life perspective really this is a non-argument. For you once the seeds of life are sown the end result is always a baby. Fine. I'm not sure why "for you" was italicized. It's like you want to say that abortion is just a matter of opinion and there is no moral imperative with regard to it, whi…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:46 PM
0

From a pro-life perspective (which I understand is the minority on /r/mensrights and on reddit in general), this doesn't really make sense. You have the right to empty the chambers of a gun you own whenever you want, but if you use the trigger to do it and point the barrel at someone else's head, you should at least think twice and probably not go through with it at all.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:39 PM
1

But he's paying for it now, when it should be his own business :-).
/r/MensRights26/07/11 12:51 PM
1

I bet you wouldn't have to dig too deep to find quotes from leading liberals saying that Bill Clinton's private life is his own business.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:07 PM
9

/r/mensrights - substantive gender equality for all people Why I chose each bit: substantive - indicates that we favor rules based equality, not equality of outcome gender - this subreddit is about gender relations equality - self-explanatory for all people - indicates that we want the same thing for men and women, we don't want any rights at the unreasonable expense of women and we don't want women to have any rights at the unreasonable expense of men If you feel you have to say something about…
/r/MensRights15/07/11 05:40 PM
1

Because I wasn't in a position where I could make an informed decision? Feminists be crazy :-).
/r/MensRights15/07/11 01:57 PM
3

I've never been raped, so I can't compare that situation with being cheated on by a woman, but I can say from experience that being cheated on by a woman you love is one of the worst things that can ever happen to you. My (now ex) wife cheated on me for about a year with her boss before I found out, and showed no remorse upon discovery (or to this day, for that matter). Her boss was married with three kids, too. I think that (generally) people underestimate or even discount the psychological sca…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 10:47 PM
0

If you disagree with a woman, you're part of the "hate brigade".
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:46 PM
-2

1- Don't stick your dick in crazy. 2- Don't get in a comment war with crazy. She's rationalizing her behavior because she has trouble admitting when she's wrong, which is clearly the case here. Just let her be and she'll go away. She advocated kicking a man in the nuts as a response to being spit on. Two wrongs never make a right. No man should spit on a woman unless she's into that sort of thing, and no woman should kick a man in the nuts as a response to being spit on. She advocated the latter…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 01:40 PM
3

Oh shit. Yes. Yes I do.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 06:43 PM
1

Maybe "feminist" was the wrong word. "Woman who advocates for women's rights" might be better. Check out /r/truefeminism, and I think you'll find a more balanced view than you might expect. And anyway, that wasn't the point of my post.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:45 PM
9

1- People don't make false assault claims nearly as often as they make false rape claims. 2- People who have been raped don't always appear beaten/bruised (at least not physically). 3- First responders are an important part of fact finding in almost every criminal investigation. It's important that they try to ascertain the details surrounding the case, so they ask questions. Some of these questions may make the victim feel uncomfortable (e.g. "what exactly happened?") and some might make the vi…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:42 PM
1

There are plenty of feminists who make equality their goal, and wouldn't advocate for a society where the alleged victim of rape is believed no matter what. That being said, there are a lot that do, and here's why I think they do it: Real rape victims are perfect recruits for some of the more insidious forms of feminism. When a woman is raped and comes forward with her story, she really does deal with at least a few people who don't believe her or attack her credibility (whether it be police, la…
/r/MensRights05/07/11 03:34 PM
1

I saw your other comments, especially the explanation of "inhabitation," which, while interesting philosophically, would never meet a legal standard. Why not? I don't disagree with you I just want to hear your explanation if you don't mind.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 07:42 PM
1

Yeah "conception" is really not my criteria for what entails personhood, but it's easier to say one word that everyone is familiar with than explain my position. I think personhood begins when three criteria are met: humanity, genetic individuality, and inhabitation. I've gone into more detail in other comments so I'll spare you, but I hold a more complex view than just "conception" fyi.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:21 PM
0

I do. It's a ball of cells, growing in my body, part of me. It's attached to me, and is using MY blood to grow. It may be your opinion that it's something/one else, but you can't say there's no rational justification for considering something attached to me, inside my organs, using my blood, is not a part of me. It has a different genetic code than you do. It's undoubtedly using your body and your nourishment to grow, but it's CERTAINLY not you. DNA testing is what we use to determine identity. …
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:23 PM
0

I'll say it again slower: Because it's about the woman's rights to what happens inside of her body with her consent. I know that's what you THINK, but you have no rational justification for what you think unfortunately. The fetus IS NOT YOU, it's something (or in my opinion, someone) else. It's not a fucking part of your motherfucking body, it's just inside it. If you want to say it's a worthless lump of cells equivalent to a tumor and it has no rights, then it logically follows that it can be d…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 01:43 PM
0

Nope. Why not? It's a lump of cells with no rights. It's inside you, but it's not part of you. If you can kill it with impunity so can I, so long as I don't harm you in the process.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 01:13 PM
1

End the life of a person to preserve bodily integrity? Doesn't make much sense...
/r/MensRights29/06/11 01:10 PM
1

No, there is adequate scientific and philosophical justification for being pro-life. I think the criteria that define personhood are humanity, genetic individuality, and inhabitation. I have been over this in a number of my recent comments. I'm not religious, I'm not an idiot, but I AM pro-life, and I do have good rational grounds. Also, opinions can be wrong. The whole purpose of our educational system is to correct wrong opinions. Think of all the people down through history who have had "opin…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:29 PM
-1

Right, because no one ever commits suicide or decides it wasn't worth living. You never see foster kids who are depressed and miserable wish they'd never been born. Point is, it's not YOUR decision. YOU do not get to decide if MY life is worth living. Seems obvious, no? Oh really? Do we let children vote, or make them pay taxes, or drink alcohol, or have sex? No? They must not be people then. We already allow levels of personhood. (And yes, I do support providing animals with adequate healthcare…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:21 PM
7

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:10 PM
3

The latter is just plain oppressive. You should follow up statements like this with "in my opinion" when over half of U.S. citizens disagree with you.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:18 PM
4

Identical twins have identical DNA, not identical genes. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:07 PM
-1

if we're braindead, and won't get better ... Heh, another moral grounds for disagreement. I believe that sentient, sapient, tool-using critters should be treated as more than just animals. The greater apes, elephants, whales and porpoises, ravens, parrots, and octopodes are currently on my list of Animals We Should Not Kill Or Eat. They're on your list for "don't kill or eat", but are they on your list for "provide adequate medical care" or "enfranchise with voting rights" or "levy taxes on"? Ob…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:03 PM
0

I used bad wording. Sorry. I did make a positive claim. What I mean was that I'm not going to go into where I think personhood is conferred except as a response to a claim made by someone else AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL POLICY. The reason is because pro-lifers don't have the burden of proof about where personhood is conferred because we're not the ones aborting the unborn. If you're going to undertake a procedure that 1/2 the population thinks of as murder, then yeah, you need some justification.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:13 PM
3

Wow you couldn't have guessed more wrong. I'm not and would never be a member of PETA. I love a thick juicy steak and if a ferile cat comes on my property it's going to get what's coming to it :-). We SHOULDN'T give those animals personhood and rights. I think personhood is conferred on the basis of three criteria (all three must be present): Humanity, Genetic Individuality, Inhabitation That's it.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:11 PM
-1

It's not a cop out. I'm not the one having the abortion. I'm morally neutral in the situation. I don't have to go around spouting my views, but I will respond to any claim about personhood criteria with my own views and why I think they're better (unless you change my mind).
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:08 PM
-1

I know how burden of proof works, and I know I made a positive claim. What I mean is I'll only get into when I think personhood begins as a response to another claim AS A RULE. It's not my job to prove abortion is morally wrong, even if I could. I've been led into pointless discussions too many times. If you're planning to have an abortion though (i.e. undergo a procedure that 1/2 the US thinks is murder), you'd better have an adequate justification for your actions. If you want to give me your …
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:06 PM
6

Interesting viewpoint. Would you be against a pill that aborted the cells one second after the egg and sperm joined? What about a pill that blew them up one second before they joined? "Conception" is a useful but not entirely accurate way to describe when I think personhood begins. I think personhood begins whenever three things are present: humanity, genetic individuality, and inhabitation. Humanity and genetic individuality is easy to understand. Once the mass of cells (or whatever it's approp…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:02 PM
0

Because the burden of proof is not mine.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 03:43 PM
1

A blastocyst does not have a thought process, any feeling, etc. 1- You're in a car accident and lose all cognitive and emotional function. You are still a person. The ability to think and feel are not adequate criteria for determining personhood. 2- Chimpanzees have great cognitive capacity than many human beings which are conferred rights in the United States as "persons", yet we don't grant personhood to chimps. 3- The list of fully grown animals that we slaughter every day for meat/hide that …
/r/MensRights28/06/11 03:06 PM
4

There is adequate scientific and philosophical justification for the view that personhood begins at conception that it's disingenuous to chalk up the entire pro-life movement to religious oppression.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 02:18 PM
-3

If personhood begins at conception (and there's actually good scientific and philosophical justification for this line of thinking), then it's pretty horrific. Think about that for a second. Put aside your views and be neutral for a minute, and think about what it means for society if personhood does begin at conception.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 02:17 PM
1

As I said in my first response in this thread, I would never circumcise my own children, and I'm a supporter of a ban on circumcision. I think it is immoral to circumcise anyone without their informed consent. That being said, I don't think circumcision is "mutilation". I think the reason men against circumcision want to call it "mutilation" is because the term "female circumcision" and "female genital mutilation" have become almost synonymous, and they want to either adopt part of the strategy …
/r/MensRights27/06/11 06:20 PM
0

I disagree. My body is in no way "crippled". I lack a small piece of skin with some nerve tissue.
/r/MensRights27/06/11 01:06 PM
1

Found three definitions of "mutilate": To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. To disfigure by damaging irreparably. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. By 2 & 3, I have been mutilated. By 1, I have not been mutilated. All I was trying to say is that I am completely content with the functionality and appearance of my penis. I think it's morally wrong to circumcise an infant, but it's not the end of the world for me personally and I'm not bitter about the fact that it hap…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:32 PM
1

Preface: I would never circumcise a child. That being said, I was circumcised as an infant, and my penis is FAR from "mutilated". I can piss and fuck comfortably. Orgasms are like pissing rainbows made of stardust, so if it's actually better when you're uncut then holy shit what the fuck could that possibly feel like? My penis is just fine the way it is, and I don't think my parents had any sort of malicious intention when they chose to have the procedure done to me. Also, if you think about it,…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:04 PM
2

I'm not a woman, but I've had my ex-wife and a few girlfriends report the same thing about the auto industry. I really don't understand why this happens though, because it seems really counter-productive to chase away women. I hope I'm not being sexist when I say that more men know how to repair their own vehicle then women (not because women are less capable). Wouldn't you want your business to be friendly toward one of its biggest customer bases?
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:42 PM
3

I'm not sure why anything in my comment indicates a lack of self-esteem, but allow me to assure you that I think I'm pretty great. He did the same thing to you that MRAs get from feminists all the time. He tried to play on your insecurities to put a quick end to the argument. He should apologize to you, because you're so obviously wrong that it's unfortunate that he tainted his post with a personal attack. Citation? Don't be lazy. Google "doctor refuses to perform vasectomy". This is a comment o…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 09:19 PM
1

Maybe feminists would, but WOMEN wouldn't. We don't want to be the male version of feminists, we want to be men + equality. I could envision normal women thinking the shirt is funny (i.e. having a sense of humor about something that's not supposed to be taken seriously).
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:38 PM
1

I agree with Groundhog. Shirt seems like a pretty innocent joke to me, and I don't think we'd see too many women complaining if it were reversed either. Sometimes I think you guys are looking too hard for problems.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 01:22 PM
2

If you think it's morally wrong I can accept that, but I can't accept you imposing your morality on another. Sure you can, you do it every day. If someone owned black slaves against their will in your city, you'd probably go over and tell them that you think it's wrong. Hell, you'd probably even petition your government for a law against it if there wasn't one already! I can think of a million examples where human beings have no trouble imposing their own moral code, but it's taboo with abortion…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 02:31 PM
1

Since this is the premise of your disagreement, I'll simply reply to it directly. Could is not be the case that people flaunting their money wish to have positive attention from others as well? Or perhaps they get a certain satisfaction from showing off their money, even to people in bad neighbourhoods at 2am. So, while women might want to show off their bodies, while not necessarily wanting to have sex, the analogy would be rich people wanting to show off their money, but not wanting to be robb…
/r/MensRights15/06/11 01:20 PM
13

I think the analogy here is off. As men we pride ourselves on our rationality and logical approach to problems, so let's take a look at the analogy as presented: Women walking around in slutty clothes and being flirtatious is analogous to people walking around in bad neighborhoods with money and expensive jewelry. The robbers are analogous to rapists. I think the nuance here is hard to see, but women want (and have a right to want) attention from men, but may not necessarily want to have any sex…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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