TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

corduroyblack Archive

View 0 posts and 40 comments by corduroyblack on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Then what's the basis for requring proof of custody to get aid? That makes no sense. If this is a requirement, there is a law or administrative code requiring it.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/17 05:51 PM
4

Legal arbitration is a real thing. Usually done to avoid a divorce from being public.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/17 12:42 PM
5

Citations to that law?
/r/PussyPassDenied24/05/17 12:39 PM
3

He was also referring to OJ murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend too...
/r/MensRights16/03/17 12:31 AM
1

So what if she does that? Does pointing out the obvious do anything to better him? At best, he's venting, which need not be publicized. At worst, he's providing evidence to a court of him bad mouthing her. Which doesn't help.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 04:22 PM
–

OP - I'm an attorney. What state are you in? Most states have 25% of gross income for CS. Alimony usually is an equalizing payment to equalize incomes. I'm guessing you were married at least 10 years... Either way, you should talk to an attorney. You should also try to clean up your language a little bit, because you're being openly insulting towards the mother of your children, and saying she "does nothing all day" but "sit on her fat ass" and while I get that you're pissed, this makes you look…
/r/MensRights29/10/16 06:00 PM
1

That's from the perp's own court filings, mind you...
/r/MensRights01/06/16 03:38 PM
-7

This will surely be a civil comment section.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/05/16 02:53 PM
1

Your second point is true. I'm just saying - this content is about people in power selectively enforcing rules based on their own biases/interests. Then this post demonstrates the same kind of behavior. That's pretty ironic.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 05:30 PM
-10

So... you don't remove content that violates the subreddits rules if it gets enough upvotes and gets subreddit visibility on /r/all? So this is selective enforcement of rules for different cases? This has gone meta quickly. That's kind of amusing, but I understand the logic there.
/r/MensRights20/08/15 01:48 PM
1

I'm not giving personal information on myself. I know you're asking me to provide a citation for my assertion, which is absolutely fine. Because I'm an attorney, if I start pointing out statues in state law, that could constitute legal advice, which I'm not going to do online. And I'm not qualified or licensed to practice in most states. Here's a quick thing I found on a google search on the issue: http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/a/custody_laws.htm
/r/MensRights22/03/12 01:35 PM
1

Many, including mine.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 01:11 PM
0

Yup. That's what I said. And it's what you did. Consider me edified by your wit and wisdom.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 02:44 AM
0

For future reference, ad hominem attacks are when you attack the speaker, not the content of speech. If I did that, I apologize. That being said, I don't think I did that. You're attacking my status as an attorney, disregarding things without citing evidence or sources, and appealing with statements that say "I'm trying to fuck up a relationship". That's not just insulting, it's obviously not true. I will address your behavior now: you seem quite aggravated. I apologize if you've had some bad ex…
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:31 AM
1

That's actually a great idea. The e-system. Almost like a child-support debit account that both parties have access to... I'm on a family law advisory board that suggests changes to state law based on new ideas, programs, etc. I'm going to bring this up at our next meeting. I'm fairly certain that there will be resistance. 1) It will have some start up costs and will require some monitoring. 2) Tracking purchases could be somewhat difficult. That being said, it wouldn't affect attorney fees, as …
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:28 PM
0

I think you'd do well to not call an abstract idea your "enemy". Feminism is supposed to be for equal rights and the advancement of women in general. Does that come into tension with the status of men? Of course it does. But some change is necessary and painful. We're just arguing over how it will take place from here on out. What this subreddit is about could equally be called masculinism.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:16 PM
-1

I think you hit on the biggest weakness in the CS system. There's no accountability for it's use. I'm sure many bad parents get CS money and spent it drugs, booze, etc. Having worked with the system for some time, I'm not sure how this accountability could be managed. Social workers assigned to monitor spending in every case, maybe? That'd get pretty expensive over time. The problem with the suggestion below your edit is that it allows CS-paying individuals to opt out of the system. The CS oblig…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:00 PM
1

What is your understanding of "custody"? In my state, this means "legal" custody, which is decision-making power over the child (school, health care, activities, etc.) Anyone can support a child in some fashion. I've had cases where it's literally no more than $20 a week because income was that low. But everyone must contribute.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:47 PM
1

Do you have an alternative solution to the issue of forcing parents to support their children after a divorce/break-up? CS has problems, don't get me wrong. It's worse in some states than others. As a family law lawyer, I would be enthusiastic about some positive suggestions to improve the system.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:01 PM
0

If she has greater custody, she has greater financial responsibility. I suppose we have different opinions on this. The law in most jurisdictions actually assumes that if you have more placement (there's a different between custody and placement, mind you), you are entitled to greater CS, because you are contributing time, not money to the support of the child. If placement is 50/50, then CS is generally not granted at all. Because the mother has more placement, it is presumed that she spends mo…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:47 PM
-1

What? Why? Is that what this subreddit is about? Banning different opinions?
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:36 PM
-7

I am going to say some things that will probably be downvoted here. By not demanding a greater amount of child support from your former partner, you are economically harming your child. The rationale behind CS is not to stick it to anyone. The point is to legally require parents to support their children and keep them out of poverty, out of crime, and on the road to successful life. If you don't need any money to help raise your daughter, that is great for everyone involved. I doubt that is the …
/r/MensRights21/03/12 04:00 AM
1

To be honest, I didn't know how to read that table, nor am I particularly well-versed in the actual definitons of "deployed" vs. "not deployed". I assume the units with 9% pregnancy rates are deployed? My biggest question is whether there is any kind of control for which women are in the unit. I would assume that non-deployed units, like staff at hospitals or whatnot stateside would constitute older women, and thus, significantly less likely to be pregnant. I'm assuming that units that are most …
/r/MensRights10/10/11 03:46 PM
1

The problem I was referring to was not pregnancy itself. This discussion has largely been about the phenomenon of intentional pregnancy to avoid service. That study considers the effects of pregnancy on the military, and does not provide any evidence of elective pregnancy followed by elective abortion. I'm not denying pregnancy causes issues for the military. What I took issue with was what appeared to be an anti-woman rant that said many women intentionally get pregnant to get out of service. I…
/r/MensRights10/10/11 03:20 PM
1

I appreciate the source. It's certainly something, even if it's an anonymous individual (that makes the source no better than a posting on Reddit). I guess it's just one of those issues where there isn't enough of a problem for there to be a better source of evidence for it. That suggest that it's not that big of a problem.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 01:14 PM
1

What was the unsupported assertion about some fact I was making? Can you quote it for me? I read the history and didn't find it. Also, that link is not a statutory cite. Please provide a link to something other than the UCR. Like, a state law that says rape is only male on female. Othewise, your claim that women are exempt is not exactly believable.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:48 PM
1

First of all, rape in many jurisdictions is defined in a way that excludes female-on-male assaults. Strike one. Want to provide one? A statutory cite, that is. And.... I can believe something logical without having to examine studies. I believe in gravity without knowing a thing about gravitational physics. The only reason that you need to cite sources is if you are making an unsupported assertion. Edit - Also, I think you might've missed the fact that the sample size in the Predictors study was…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 08:25 PM
1

Can you point to something I've said that I have no real evidence for? I think I answered by pointing to some general information that I admittedly didn't support. I did say that I was making some assumptions there. I feel that this discussion is somewhat of a waste of time, as you're not responding to my points by bringing up irrelevant diversions and focusing on the idea that I'm asserting anything without evidence. I'm not going to cite to much. Why waste my time? If you think women are exemp…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 07:18 PM
1

Did you find that here? I've read it. It's a great book. I actually don't recall that discussion, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's there. If it is, please share whether or not it's an citation backed source or just discussion.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:23 PM
0

I didn't say anyone is lying. What I'm saying is that I have not seen anything beyond anecdotal evidence of "my husband is on a ship and they lost two women due to pregnancy" or "my squad had a woman who got sent home because she got herself pregnant". If this were a real substantive problem, I believe there would be greater evidence than a few people saying so. As I said earlier, I would assume that it does happen. But I'm not going to claim that it does until there's better evidence than a few…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:44 PM
1

That more men rape other people than women rape other people? I don't have hard statistics on that to point to. I'd assume it's true because of rape convictions over a long period of time. Also, by their very nature, men have a somewhat easier ability to force sex. I'd probably accept that it's true. Why do you ask?
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:34 PM
-1

Nice try. The Daily Mail is hardly a quality source, but if it had some actual content on the subject, I'd say you had a point. But that article doesn't say anything about statistics or any primary source stating that it happens. It's just about the promulgation of rules to prevent it.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:44 AM
-1

Until I see proof of it, why should I believe it? Because a bunch of anonymous people on Reddit say so? That's not how logical discussions work. If you have a point that is in doubt, you offer proof to support the assertion. Why should I believe women are getting pregnant to avoid service and that it's somehow unfair? To answer your question, if there was a question over the veracity of your assertion (the PTSD claim), I would also ask for proof of it. I'm pretty sure there are Army reports or s…
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:29 AM
0

Hey. No one has pointed out any proof to me beyond "I heard it from so and so." or "I saw it happen." That isn't proof. It's anecdotal evidence, and it's not worth diddly squat. If it's common knowledge, there should be more tangible proof of it.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:17 AM
-1

I'm not saying it's far fetched. I'm saying I've seen no evidence of it. Sure, people do wacky shit. I believe it. I'm asking for proof.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:14 AM
0

No. I'm confused by the implication from the question.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 01:14 AM
-3

I take it you've never been pregnant before. Note - we are discussing something that I've seen no evidence of actually occurring (that being intentional pregnancy to avoid voluntary service).
/r/MensRights06/10/11 09:21 PM
3

I was actually questioning his belief that pregnancy is in any way easy.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 08:54 PM
6

Source? (I don't really doubt you... people do wacky shit...)
/r/MensRights06/10/11 07:29 PM
1

Pregnancy is an easy way out of what?
/r/MensRights06/10/11 07:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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