TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

craigdubyah Archive

View 0 posts and 156 comments by craigdubyah 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)
0

But sexism (note how I didn't precede that with the word "institutionalized") still exists. Official policies forbid sexism, but de facto sexism continues.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 03:41 AM
-5

My point was that just because someone can't provide a "concrete example of institutionalized sexism against women", that doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist. It's a weak argument.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:56 AM
-5

How about give me one, just ONE, concrete example of institutionalized racism against blacks. I guess racism doesn't exist anymore either...
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:44 AM
-51

Well it didn't take long for this to become misogynistic.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 03:30 AM
2

That other post is saying that some men think women owe them sex in return for acting nice. Also, when did this become SRS?
/r/MensRights16/05/13 09:24 PM
-1

we're being told they are not represented enough. They aren't
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:29 PM
2

Yes.
/r/seduction29/02/12 08:27 PM
2

Did you mean to post this in r/shittyadvice?
/r/seduction29/02/12 12:08 PM
4

Different people have different sized pupils. The ambient light level is the biggest determinant of pupil size. I really, really doubt that you are able to determine a girl's interest based on the size of her pupils. Note: I study eyes for a living.
/r/seduction29/02/12 09:14 AM
1

First of all, no there isn't a good chance you have met me if I were a Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine(hint: I have actually met many of them). Me too. Therefore I am relatively sure I have more experience in the medical field than you do. So what's the most sensitive sign of PE? And when do you order a d-dimer, a spiral CT, or a V/Q scan? This is a very basic medical question. It is because you can't condone cosmetic surgery on babies and you know it. So you are changing the subjec…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 01:01 PM
1

But did you know that I am a Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine? If this is true there's a good chance I've met you.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 10:16 PM
1

Just one last question: what do you claim your extensive medical background to be?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 03:42 AM
1

Furthermore I would be willing to bet quite a lot more money that I have more experience in the medical field than you do. 4th year medical student, will be M.D. in 9 months, how about you?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:45 AM
1

I personally believe that removing erogenous tissue reduces sensation which happens to be the exact same way we treat every single other part of the body. As I said before, that's like your opinion, man. I agree that intuitively, it seems like circumcision should decrease pleasure. But lots of things in medicine aren't intuitive. That's why people do studies, and studies have tended to find no sexual differences between cut and uncut men. The anti-circ people focus only on the studies that agree…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:30 AM
1

For the love of god, thank you. Interesting study, but the methods aren't so great. First, it's an observational study (the least definitive study you can do). Second, a study like this is very vulnerable to acquiescence bias. I see your observational study and raise you a 20x larger, more recent, randomized controlled trial (the most definitive study you can do) that found no differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07369…
/r/MensRights21/07/11 01:24 AM
1

ROFL. I just asked, again, for a link to it. Thanks for the link, again. Oh wait, there was no link. I repeat, I'm not going to go digging through your post history. You know your posts better than me, simply take a link to one substantive article, and place it in this thread. That's all I ask.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 01:08 AM
1

So you wanted me to go searching through your post history? Seems like it would be a lot easier for you to link an article or two to me, I don't have time to wade through your history.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 12:16 AM
0

LOL, ok, I was hoping you would like, you know, provide them, so I don't have to go fishing through your entire posting history.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 12:43 PM
0

I have posted several links in answer to your question Nope, no links. Sorry, try again
/r/MensRights20/07/11 04:12 AM
0

I am arguing that the consequences clearly outweigh the "benefits". You are begging the question. Medical science (which is my background) disagrees with you. Vaccination cannot be performed later in life with the exact same effect, does not remove healthy, erogenous tissue, has had no ill effects associated with it, has it's effects well researched. You missed my point. Circumcision is not entirely negative, as is murder and removing arms. Circumcision is not entirely positive, as is vaccinatio…
/r/MensRights19/07/11 09:44 PM
1

No response huh?
/r/MensRights18/07/11 04:15 AM
1

The rate of complications from neonatal or adult circumcision, while listed as small in many medical reviews, is still substantially higher than the likelihood that they will even need the surgery in the first place. True. There are other benefits, such as reduced incidence of UTI and reduced STI transmission. When you take all of these into account, the risk-benefit difference pretty much disappears. Hence the recommendation of medical societies that circumcision is not generally indicated, but…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 03:24 PM
0

Just because you can't defend against the way I am arguing doesn't mean I should stop. Already defended. Apples != oranges. Re-read earlier comments. You are claiming that the "benefits" justify the procedure not being banned. And the consequences clearly outweigh the benefits. The consequences do not clearly outweigh the benefits. They don't. This is the stance of every medical society I know of, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologi…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 03:14 PM
1

Circumcising a child to spare them the surgery later on when there is only a 0.006% chance that they will need it later on is illogical, and irresponsible. This is completely unrelated to what I was talking about. I was saying that the complication rates are much lower when performed on newborns. Don't put words in my mouth. More than 200,000 men are currently trying to restore their foreskins Source?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:56 PM
1

For instance, let's say a key part of my religion was to burn down mosques and synagogues? Do you have any other means of argument? This is the same thing as cutting off childrens arms or murder. I already addressed the issue here: Apples and oranges. Circumcision has risks and benefits, thus the recommendation from medical groups that it is not medically indicated in the general population, but an elective procedure. Removing arms is purely destructive; there is no benefit. . There "benefits" i…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 06:12 AM
-4

Shouldn't basic human rights be applied to everyone? Isn't freedom to practice a religion a basic human right? So basically your argument is that I shouldn't have the ability to remove your ability to cut off your daughter's arms? What kind of sense does that make? Apples and oranges. Circumcision has risks and benefits, thus the recommendation from medical groups that it is not medically indicated in the general population, but an elective procedure. Removing arms is purely destructive; there i…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:26 AM
-3

This is surgery on minors. Therefore it is non consensual. How familiar are you with the laws of Swaziland? I don't think it should be my decision to circumcise a child or not. Neither do I think it should be yours. And I don't think it should be your decision to take decisions away from parents because their decisions offend you. Why are you so opposed to the freedom to decide what happens to your own body? Why are you so hung up on such a meaningless issue?
/r/MensRights17/07/11 05:08 AM
-2

"The US-funded circumcision campaign aims to snip 80 percent of Swazi males aged 14 to 49 within a year." Therefore boys who are under the age of majority will get circumcised. Non sequitur. Those two are unrelated, and nowhere in the article does it even hint that they will be forcing circumcisions on anyone. I have seen this "evidence" and it in no way justifies surgery on children. So it's not really evidence because you don't like their findings? We have a word for that: ignorance. As to whe…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:27 AM
-3

Boys will be forced to be circumcised against their will. That is where the problem is. Source? This program sounds like an advertising campaign. There is also evidence that circumcision can increase HIV rates in countries. There's more evidence that circumcision lowers transmission rates.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 04:15 AM
-2

Would you say the same of Female Circumcision? They are not the same procedure. Honestly I don't know enough about female circumcision to have a strong opinion, but my understanding is that far more of the anatomy is removed. A clitoroidectomy is analogous to removing the glans of a penis, or so I was taught. how do you feel about Circumcision performed in America by Jewish religious officials? When it comes to surgeries, the best surgeon are the ones that operate the most. Mohels typically perf…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 03:26 AM
-2

Biases are irrelevant in matters of fact. But since you are so insistent... I feel that when people have a child, the doctor should explain to them that circumcision is not medically indicated, that it is a matter of preference, and that there are well-trained people able to perform the circumcision if they want it done. Note that this is standard practice in American hospitals. I also feel that if people want to end circumcision as a practice, they should focus their efforts on convincing paren…
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:49 AM
0

And when the argument is lost, out comes the ad hominem.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:38 AM
-2

And when the argument is lost, out comes the ad hominem.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:27 AM
-5

If you are thinking of quitting your regular job and becoming an epidemiologist, please don't. Where to start... You shouldn't be comparing absolute prevalence, you should be comparing relative prevalence. The US has about 0.3% prevalence and France has about 0.4%, which is only an absolute difference of 0.1%. But relatively, a randomly selected French person has a 33% higher chance of having HIV than an American. If the logic behind this isn't clear, consider a case in which one population has …
/r/MensRights17/07/11 02:17 AM
-1

encouraging condoms in Swaziland would do a helluvalot more for thier HIV/AIDS infection rates than Circumcision If people actually use them, this may be true. Historically, this has been the major problem with condom-based strategies. The successful programs have mostly targeted sex workers. Ponder why America the industrialised nation with the most circumcisions (barring Israel) has the HIGHEST HIV/AIDS rate of the industrialised world? First, the US does not have the highest HIV/AIDS rate in …
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:54 AM
0

Condoms are great if people use them. Too bad people don't consistently use them.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:29 AM
-3

What's the matter with this, as long as he is not physically forcing people to get circumcised? Evidence suggests that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, and Swaziland has been absolutely ravaged by HIV.
/r/MensRights17/07/11 01:15 AM
2

If 'other side' means 'same side,' then yes.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 11:02 PM
-9

Wow. A rage comic for anti-circumcision zealots? I think I just stumbled upon the perfect storm of awful.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:38 PM
-9

Her boyfriend isn't circumcised.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:37 PM
0

I have just one question: great golf tournament, or greatest golf tournament?
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:19 AM
-11

Stopped reading it at Whether done by a physician in the hospital, or a mohel in a ritual brit milah, the procedure has significant complication rates of infection, hemorrhage and even death.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 09:55 PM
1

I've read far more about it than a person should have to. It's a complete non-issue outside of a very small subset of people (MensRights)
/r/MensRights06/06/11 10:50 PM
-2

Did I claim to be more credentialed than him? Exactly.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 04:57 AM
-7

TL;DR: A group of bored men on the internet sought out a topic to crusade behind. Instead of anything substantial, they decided to focus their efforts on a safe, commonly performed procedure, and sought to sensationalize. For many, it became an issue of freedom from the government: the freedom to prevent others from making decisions for their children. For others, it became about misinformation.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 03:45 AM
-4

You fucking idiot. I know zoologists don't like to be bothered speaking with lesser humans, but you might want to relax a little.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 03:21 AM
7

One massively ignorant comment
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:30 AM
1

But people in this subreddit aren't happy with those results. Quick, people who agree with me, assemble and validate my beliefs!
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:28 AM
-7

Wow, big words! Claiming to be more credentialed than someone you don't know is ignorant. Neither of us knows how qualified the other person is. So why don't you refrain from bringing that up. I do know, however, that you referred to some of the most delicate, sensitive skin on the human body as 'chalky and leathery.' I also know that you said 'A penis without a retractable foreskin would keep the glans and inner foreskin from being stimulated' when any circumcised man will tell you that sex fee…
/r/MensRights06/06/11 02:11 AM
1

Capital letters and paragraphs. Check em out, they're wild!
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:30 AM
-1

/pseudoexpert
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:28 AM
-10

What's genital mutilation? Oh, you mean male infant circumcisions performed by an experienced professional in a safe, sterile manner? Yeah, let's end that. I'd rather have people wanting the procedure get it done by an inexperienced, unlicensed individual in an unsafe, unclean manner.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 01:01 AM
56

Sorry Scott, but we can't let you off that easily. He's not an idiot. He knows this quote is still floating around. He deleted it because he didn't want to deal with the reaction. It actually reaffirms his message in the quote: the path of least resistance. Now he's made his point, and people can still read it, but if someone's pissed he can respond and say "Look, I deleted it. I don't want anything to do with it anymore." And what are they gonna say?
/r/MensRights08/03/11 02:32 AM
1

If you read my earlier post... From that site: Male.....Female Penis...Clitoris Glans penis...Glans clitoridis Corpora cavernosa penis... corpora cavernosa clitoridis corpora spongiosum penis...bulb of vestibule, greater vestibular glands
/r/MensRights04/03/11 05:13 PM
1

You really are the troll king. All I said was there existed theories about immune cells in foreskin. I presented two papers that investigated that theory. Therefore, the theory exists. Look back. I never said there was hard evidence of the theory being true. Just that there does exist a theory. Nice try bro.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 04:49 PM
0

I won't respond to all of what you said because I don't have time. I'd just like to make a few brief points. Do you know what else is higher in the US than in Europe? Gun ownership, obesity, truck ownership, beef consumption, corn consumption, whisky consumption, drug arrests, miles driven per person, church attendance, speaking of English, wealth disparity, number of universities per capita, baseball participation rate, American football participation rate, time spent watching TV, Coca-Cola con…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:59 PM
1

They know they can get away with charging men more because they are men. You might say, the more opportunistic their risk estimates, the more money they make. There is competition in the insurance market. You ignore basics of economics. I already brought up this point. If men were really cheaper to insure, one company could drop their rates for men, get men to switch, and make a killing. THIS IS THE BASIS OF A FREE MARKET ECONOMY. It is not a controversial or complicated idea. But I guess it's m…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:31 PM
3

Did you know that this has nothing to do with Mens Rights?
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:19 PM
1

Wow. in fact the code explicitly includes female genitalia as protected by the code; there is no logical reason why the same protection should not be extended to men I can think of a logical reason. They didn't want to outlaw male circumcision. Yep, that's pretty logical! [3] Not for lack of trying (and [4] another). Thank you for providing a perfect example of a major humans rights group refusing to declare sterile, professionally performed neonatal male circumcision a violation of human rights…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 03:00 PM
0

The father does not have the legal right to "consent" or allow a 3rd party to violate the legal and human rights of his son First, circumcisions are legal. Second, none of the major human rights groups claim that sterile, professionally performed male neonatal circumcision with parental consent is a violation of human rights. Third, parents are the only ones that can consent to a medical procedure for a child, unless it is for an emergency lifesaving procedure, in which case doctors can proceed …
/r/MensRights04/03/11 07:50 AM
3

I give it about 2 minutes before this case is promptly tossed out of the courts. Not only are circumcisions currently legal, but even if they were made illegal, this would be an ex post facto enforcement. Not to mention the absolute shitstorm this would cause. Especially because the UK has the National Health Service and this would amount to every circumcised male getting a settlement from the state. Yep, 2 minutes.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 07:39 AM
1

You: That wasn't me. That was rockymountainoysters it discriminates against individuals by painting them as riskier based on a larger group without consideration of all available meaningful data. Actually, it paints them as riskier based on all available meaningful data. Before you start driving they don't have any individual data on your personal risk. So they have to put you in a demographic. Teenage boys are dangerous drivers, so rates start high. Some insurance companies offer lower rates fo…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 07:14 AM
1

parents need to recognize that children are sovereign human beings Under the law, they are not sovereign.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 01:40 AM
2

Similar legal system biases against men are present in each and every collision where a man and woman are involved. It's clear that there is no sense discussing this point any further with you. We have a word for when one make a nonfalsifiable claim that automatically assumes every piece of data the other side presents is incorrect. The word is ignorance. Not to mention that men drive more, thus even though women get in more accidents per mile driven, men are involved in more accidents. Talk abo…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 01:30 AM
2

Also, per National Transportation and Advisory Board statistics, the women's accident rates were equvalent to men with a IIRC .12 BAC. Source or GTFO.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 01:06 AM
1

What he said. If anything, this is evidence that feminists have a lot of work ahead of them.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 11:53 PM
1

How about this: clitoris is the female equivalent of a penis
/r/MensRights03/03/11 11:23 PM
1

what needs to happen is a lot of education, to dispel the myths that surround genital cutting But that was my original point: this list doesn't do anything to dispel myths. It perpetuates myths, but for the other side. It is the FOX News of educational resources. How about something we can agree on: medical studies regarding circumcision suggest that the medical benefits of circumcision are small. There may be disadvantages to circumcision. Circumcision in the developed world is not justified by…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 10:55 PM
2

Ummm... the link you posted says the exact same thing. I didn't edit that part. And your response actually quotes me, and it's identical! Aren't you a mod? Shouldn't you be aware of these things?
/r/MensRights03/03/11 10:45 PM
1

First, you can't just link to a (clearly biased) book that people have to buy before reading as a source. Second, I would hope that any book trying to draw a link between circumcision and violence would be based on data. Otherwise it's just one guy speculating. So where are the studies?
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:58 PM
1

The external portion, as well, does appear different. Well holy shit boys and girls! Turns out our parts is different! Yours may be the weakest argument I've ever seen. Read my OP: the clitoris develops from the same tissue that forms into a penis. Removal of a clitoris is, anatomically speaking, the removal of a penis. Not a foreskin. They develop from the same tissue and are analogous structures (as obviously women don't have penises). My OP was 100% accurate. Nice try, though! Keep up the ign…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:46 PM
1

no problem in shirking an asymmetrical duty. Rape is an asymmetrical act.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:36 PM
9

I should point out that from a legal standpoint, you shouldn't divulge ANY information which could be used in any way to identify either of you. You wouldn't want her lawyer being able to use this reddit post against you.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:21 PM
-1

Wait a minute. Let's make something clear. Chemical castration is generally considered to be reversible (physically). What she did is absolutely awful, but you shouldn't have lasting physical results from it.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:58 PM
2

Just because you receive more claims where men are considered at fault, does not mean more men are at fault. Women, by driving in stupid ways, cause accidents that men are blamed for You're right. We should just ignore the data in the original study (which shows men being involved in more accidents and more fatal accidents), ignore the fact that actuaries assign insurance rates based on calculations of risk (in which they find men to be riskier), and ignore the statement from a claims adjuster (…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:47 PM
0

**An expert chimes in with relevant information** But wait, his testimony doesn't agree with my personal biases! Downvote!
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:34 PM
1

a clitoris is not a penis, anymore than an anus is a urethra. Developmental anatomy would speak otherwise. I can't link to my textbooks, but here is a site that lays it out pretty clearly. From that site: Male.....Female Penis...Clitoris Glans penis...Glans clitoridis Corpora cavernosa penis... corpora cavernosa clitoridis corpora spongiosum penis...bulb of vestibule, greater vestibular glands
/r/MensRights03/03/11 05:20 PM
0

circumcised men are 99.96 % just as likely You calculated an absolute difference and refer to it as a relative difference. Apples != oranges. A more appropriate statement (given you accept thegnu's figures) is: circumcised men are 60% as likely to contract HIV as noncircumcised men
/r/MensRights03/03/11 01:28 AM
5

If you read the article, you might notice three things. They point out that male drivers are three times as likely to die in a crash They point out that men have fewer accidents per million miles driven but that they drive 74% more. If you do the math, men are still having more accidents per driver, but fewer per mile driven. The article was written in 1998. Was there even internet then?
/r/MensRights03/03/11 12:20 AM
5

Only if your definition of skin includes subcutaneous fat. Which would be odd, seeing as how "subcutaneous" literally means "beneath the skin." Meaning that they are separate entities.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 12:08 AM
1

Please see below for my refutation of these sources. In summary, both appear to be the result of confounding. The topic has been studied extensively, and the association isn't clear. Some studies found a protective effect, some a harmful effect. Confounding is a major issue with all of the studies.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:53 PM
1

I'm happy to have another person here who approaches a scientific question in a scientific way.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:42 PM
1

In histopathological studies Langerhans cells are present in significantly greater quantities in the epithelium of human foreskin compared to the other HIV-1 target cells and appear to be the main portal of entry into the penis. Source: B.K. Patterson, A. Landay and J.N. Siegel et al., Susceptibility to human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture, Am J Pathol 161 (2002), p. 867 Source: L.A. Hussain and T. Lehner, Comparative investigati…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:29 PM
0

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)". International AIDS Society. If you bothered to actually look at that source (which is a Powerpoint presentation given 6 years ago), you would note this in the Conclusions section: we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding For the other paper... Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 …
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:18 PM
0

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)". International AIDS Society. If you bothered to actually look at that source (which is a Powerpoint presentation given 6 years ago), you would note this in the Conclusions section: we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding For the other paper... Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al. "Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 …
/r/MensRights02/03/11 11:07 PM
1

36 That is an insignificant (statistically speaking) finding from a small sub-analysis. But I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the actual article. Or that you would even understand a chi-squared test for 4/54 versus 11/70. A number of much larger, better-designed studies show the opposite. Nice try though. Edit: go die in a fire. It appears that you are mad. You mad?
/r/MensRights02/03/11 10:48 PM
0

I am wondering how long it will be until this somehow gets conflated with circumcision.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 09:00 PM
1

yes, but there's no data on it Then don't lump the opinions of a biased non-expert (you) along with statistical data. It's incredibly misleading. i would wager a lot of money on this speculation. This is a meaningless statement. Also, here is an article that shows inexperienced people tend to be overconfident in their beliefs. i have to go, and can't find it right now. That's because it doesn't exist. Here is a paper analyzing data that showed higher rates of HIV in circumcised females.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:49 PM
8

This isn't an FAQ. This is a biased list of cherry-picked sources that reinforces your beliefs. The following sources, in fact, are downright laughable: [1] : A quote from an anti-circumcision advocate. [3] : A graphic video intended to scare/gross out people [8] : Extremely weak argument, as correlation != causation. In addition, as was pointed out by Gary LeHam, there is no plausible explanation for such an effect. [9], [10]: These quotes are from the 1880's. You wouldn't allow feminists to br…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 08:39 PM
-2

Is that really the best you can do to make this discussion overly emotional and hyperbolic.? You must be new here.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:28 PM
3

Multiply by 3 or divide by 3 and then do the same with four, or do 7 and 8 instead. What are you talking about?
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:18 PM
1

keratinization of the penis is why it reduces transmission to men This isn't completely true. There are also theories that immune cells present in foreskin allow for increased transmission rates. while the keratinization protects men, the increased friction can only increase the transmission rate to women. Objection: speculation excision of the labia minora reduces the transmission rate of HIV as well Source?
/r/MensRights02/03/11 07:08 PM
2

The article raises an important point, but there's one issue that it ignores: incarceration is extremely expensive. Here is an article that shows that a 1 year jail sentence in California cost the state $43,149 in 2007-2008. Unless the state is able to extract more than the cost to incarcerate, they aren't profiting from inmates, they are just reducing their costs. And by reducing their costs, I mean reducing our costs, since taxpayers ultimately pay for prisons.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:57 PM
0

Now on the issue of HIV, HPV, and Herpies(the three biggest stds claimed to be reduced by circumcision) I call bullshit. This is perhaps the best example of straight up ignorance I've ever seen. The studies were well-designed and performed by accomplished, reputable researchers. As Bolshevik points out below, the medical argument for circumcision is a weak one. Meaning, the expected medical benefits of a single circumcision appear to be small. This is why circumcision is not a routine recommenda…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 06:47 PM
1

Neither my penis nor the color of my car has anything to do with my fucking driving. Actuarially, it does.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:11 PM
-2

I can't please everybody, and I'm not willing to try. So maybe you should drop that from your bullet list.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:52 PM
-1

I see, first you say men as a group are rapists. Then we're not! Complete 180. Reading comprehension fail. Yes, to our "justice" system, it is somehow just to enslave a man, to make some man, any man, pay. Get a better lawyer and stop crying. There is no moral or legal obligation here in the example barbarossaaaa provides. Unless you have some special set of morals that isn't based on the godlen rule, you are 100% wrong. Men as a group didn't "create" the problem of rape Yes, they did. Feminists…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:28 PM
1

Viagra/Cialis/Levitra are some of the most popular, financially successful medications in the world. You need to clarify your statement.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 06:52 PM
7

What really happened to her is none of our fucking business. Especially when you start going by reports of people that admit they didn't see the whole thing. Respect her privacy. She will talk about it if she wants to talk about it. Until then we shouldn't speculate. And this goes both ways: angry feminists shouldn't be using this to make a point when we don't know what happened.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 06:06 PM
0

I'm telling you that if you want to make a family, marriage is your best bet.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:55 PM
3

I take issue with a few of your points. Men die earlier than women. This is true. But it appears to be biological and not societal (ie, women in every culture live longer). So, blame God or Darwin or the FSM for this one. Prostate cancer is ignored, but breast cancer is a cause celebre. As was pointed out, this is not the case. Women have reliable, reversible birth control. Men do not. Again, this is biological. A woman's reproductive cycle is far easier to regulate than male spermatogenesis. Lo…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:28 PM
1

This is proof that women receive more funding. You know...? The original point you were denying. No, this does NOT prove that. To prove that you would have to assume that every charity spends the same money and that the same amount of money is spent on healthcare treatment for men and women. Otherwise it's a complete assumption. Looks like you're wrong, pal. Women are as violent, if not more violent in relationships. Excuse me if I don't completely believe your source. As for rape, the majority …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:13 PM
-4

You are right. And by right, I mean forever alone.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:35 AM
0

And? As he isn't one of them himself, I don't see what you're getting at here. You are backing away from my original argument, which is that women wanting men to help protect them from rape is perfectly reasonable since the rape of a woman by a man is a problem entirely created by men. And NO, not all men are rapists. But some are. And a woman being raped has no control over those men. But guess who does? Someone that witnesses a rape (male or female). if you refuse to acknowledge that it is in …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:23 AM
1

That more research money is used for health conditions found more commonly in females than males This is different than the original premise. It was that "women get more health care money than us", not that women get more research money. And you still haven't proven that premise. Someone already pointed out how wrong you are on the engineering/medical profession comment of your post, which just had me floored. Except I instead of talking about 'my friend' (which is impossible to verify) I actual…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:13 AM
0

First, I would like to point out that a single anecdote doesn't mean shit. Based on the data, I can say is that your friend is the exception to the rule. Average BSN salary: 76k Average EE salary: 86k Source: indeed.com
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:02 AM
0

These are GOVERNMENT health offices for men? What does this have to do with the original point? Nothing. You implied one of two things there, based on the cultural zeitgeist of man=bad, woman=good: That domestic violence is a strictly male-on-female problem... OR That somehow seeing a man would be "too traumatic" for someone abused, as if all men are abusers. Domestic violence is overwhelmingly male on female, as is rape. Because of this discrepancy, the resources available tend to be for women.…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 09:52 AM
0

You make a semantic argument. So let's call them battered women's shelters. Because that's what they are. And what can you say now?
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:16 AM
-1

(there isn't a single one for men) There are many foundations for testicular cancer. Nice try though. All men are rapists and that's all they are. Am I right guys. Grats on completely dodging all of my points and making a joke. You look real smart tho! Then why all of the BS smoke and mirrors of declaring women as "minorities." I told you why it happens. Universities accept money. People place stipulations on the money. End of story.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:37 AM
2

This is abuse From the sounds of it, both she and he are pretty fucked up. And she's a blogger, she's not exactly on CBS Nightly News.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:42 AM
-1

Dangerous argument. "Men" don't. Criminals do. And those criminals are men. As a man who doesn't create violence against women, what responsibility does he have? None. Legally he doesn't. As a human being, he does. Men are not some sort of hive mind collective. We are not responsible for this and do not need to "step up," While we are not individually responsible for the actions of others, there is an implicit responsibility that the powerful care for the powerless. And when a woman is being rap…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:30 AM
-10

-Because women get more health care money than us, even though we die sooner. What are you referring to here? Because giving birth is very expensive -Because domestic violence shelters routinely refuse to admit men in spite of mounting evidence suggesting men are victims too. This is a practical consideration. You wouldn't allow people dressed as clowns into a shelter for victims of people attacked by clowns. -Because our pornography (visual) is vilified and tightly regulated; while women's porn…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 12:12 AM
3

Celebrities get away with shit all the time. Just because it's a woman getting away with something doesn't mean it has anything to do with sexism.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 11:02 PM
3

"We will not give economic opportunities to women, we will not hire them to any jobs, we will reserve that position for a qualified and competent man to combat discriminatory affirmative action against men" Umm... did anyone else's irony sense tingle during that bit? "we will never spend money in relationships between men and women" No wonder he sounds so angry.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:23 PM
-4

I'm sorry, but this guy's view of the world is incredibly selfish and plagued with bad logic. Below is the most grievous example of the bad logic "when women in society at large decided to burden men with the job of selflessly saving women from violence, that this was an act of violence against the entire male gender" In his accounting of violence, he forgets that most violence towards woman is done by men. It is the broken window fallacy. Men create violence towards women, and in response women…
/r/MensRights28/02/11 10:10 PM
2

The headline should instead read: The top 7 parenting-related topics most likely to get people to forward this article.
/r/MensRights28/02/11 09:53 PM
2

I don't think it contributes anything to post stories about a single person behaving badly. This woman is clearly crazy. But what's the point?
/r/MensRights28/02/11 09:42 PM
6

This sort of thing seems to be just inflammatory and counter-productive.
/r/MensRights26/02/11 10:17 PM
1

How is that hypocritical?
/r/MensRights25/02/11 09:18 PM
1

This is my favorite response. Because it's true.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 07:27 PM
2

We're talking about a 16 year-old that was forced into prostitution. If genders were reversed, and it were a boy forced into prostitution by his girlfriend, who later killed a woman (engaging in prostitution with a minor) with a claim of self-defense, you would be absolutely outraged. Please tell me I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 06:43 PM
1

Interestingly there is quite a bit of resistance when you question things. speculate on things based on incorrect/unproven assumptions to advance your own bias. FTFY
/r/MensRights25/02/11 06:33 PM
3

Have you read any of those? No, you clearly haven't. Now it's my turn to cite something I haven't read, don't have any knowledge of, but found a link to online. Pine, Madsen. How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum Intl Pub Group (2007) - Paperback - 182 pages - ISBN 0826498949 Man, I am so good at doing research
/r/MensRights25/02/11 06:12 PM
3

So you copy-pasted the sources from the wikipedia article on phthalates? No, it's not better. It's a meaningless wall of text.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:52 PM
2

That isn't a source. That's a Digg-style story that alludes to research without giving a citation. Try again.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:24 PM
13

But... men don't give birth.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 05:46 PM
5

Please refrain from ever saying that again.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 02:02 AM
-1

A retrospective study is a perfectly valid study design. Sometimes, it's all you can get.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 01:46 AM
-1

AKA I got trolled.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 01:36 AM
2

Like the appendix? Or the coccyx? Or ostrich wings? Or a near endless list of other vestigal structures in plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi? Lol, pwned.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 01:25 AM
-4

Amputating your infant child's genitals is a good example of this. Not only is that not an accurate depiction of circumcision, but that's like your opinion... man.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 01:13 AM
1

it should say, "Compelling evidence shows that..." But that's the thing. Compelling evidence doesn't show those things. They are valid objections to circumcision, don't get me wrong. But unless you can provide compelling scientific evidence for those things, those qualifiers belong there.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:54 AM
-8

The argument is not that men don't rape it's that the vast majority don't. Obviously. Who cares?
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:44 AM
1

I have to say, I am very familiar with the topic, and this list looks really fair to me. It succinctly sums up both sides of the argument and states that it is a parental choice (which it currently is). What reasons would you add to the list? BRACES FOR DOWNVOTE STORM
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:30 AM
-1

I only had 5 minutes to post earlier (had a lab meeting). You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people. And I just noticed your posts above where you repeatedly use the word 'faggot.' I think I did get trolled. edit: My conclusion was that the Journal of Boyhood Studies article that these idiots keep citing is completely worthless. It's not something I rushed to. The article is absolute trash.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:28 AM
-2

You can easily reframe this as the state taking the parent's ability to choose. It's still you trying to enforce your beliefs on others.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:24 AM
-1

And then it became about explaining the significance of just how awful your reference was as someone dutifully defended it. All I was saying is that the Journal of Boyhood Science article is complete and utter crap. you're standing in quicksand and you're in over your head. I read, analyze, and write papers for a living. I'm doing just fine. Had more than 5 minutes to look this up. Pediatrics. 1989 Jun;83(6):1011-5. Summary: Review of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985. In …
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:15 AM
2

It's a poorly-written, giant wall o'text...but a decent amount of information. That's not scientific at all.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:11 AM
-2

For some actual data, check these out. Pediatrics. 1989 Jun;83(6):1011-5. Summary: Review of 136,086 boys born in US Army hospitals from 1980 to 1985. In 100,157 circumcised boys, there were no deaths attributed to circumcision. There were two deaths reported due to urinary tract infection in the uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9. Summary: Of 354,297 male infants born in Washington state, 130,475 were circumcised. There were no deaths associated with circumcision. J Urol…
/r/MensRights24/02/11 12:05 AM
-9

But many men do rape.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 11:54 PM
-1

I would actually believe you if you didn't make stupid mistakes that an expert in that field would be embarrassed to admit. I'm actually laughing out loud right now. your 500k number is from your 'researcher' going through city records and discovering at one point, they managed to circumcise 500k infants without one dying on the table That is pure speculation. I think I'm done being trolled by you.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 11:48 PM
-1

I hope you're jerking me around with this revelation that you actually do research professionally. Nope. Got an unrestricted grant to study epidemiology. No industry ties at all. I shouldn't be at all surprised by your willingness to use lazy research methods and obviously unreliable data to argue a point you were seeking to prove in the first place. I couldn't have said it better. Journal of Boyhood Studies... You have to be in the industry. Only a corrupt researcher would come right out and sa…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 11:19 PM
-1

Let's forget about how you linked a two page literature review from thirty years ago. You're right. Medicine has progressed since that time. The figure today might be even lower. After 500k when no one had died, he declared his science to be complete and recorded his point measurement rotten with sampling biases and declared it a worldwide average for all of history. This is a perfectly valid study. It's a retrospective study. This is in no way junk science. And it is actual data. Please provide…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 11:00 PM
-1

but we hold redditors to a higher standard Yet someone can post an abstract from the Journal of Boyhood Studies by an author with no credentials, with no information on how the study was conducted or funded, and nobody has a problem with it? Get real.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 10:59 PM
4

The website is called the "International Coalition for Genital Integrity." Why don't you find me some articles about how safe cigarettes are on the Phillip-Morris website? Also, that article is simply a report of the same bogus article from the Journal of Boyhood Studies. As a sidenote, I have some concern that searching for 'journal of boyhood studies' in Google will land me on some kind of watch-list.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 07:57 PM
-4

An article from a journal called the Journal of Boyhood Studies (never heard of it), not listed on PubMed, article is $15 even though I have extensive journal subscriptions. And the author has no academic credentials. And the numbers given are way way way above the generally accepted death rate (which is less than 1 in 500,000) Sounds legit. /sarcasm
/r/MensRights23/02/11 07:41 PM
-7

Over a hundred baby boys die because of the surgery every year in America No they don't. Please find a source for this that isn't extremely bogus. I dare you.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 07:12 PM
-8

That does not mean you have the right to dictate that to everyone else. The irony burns.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 07:10 PM
1

But what I am arguing is that they should not have that right You never actually brought this up until now. So, in your view, Jews should be forbidden from having a bris because you see it as 'wrong and immoral' ?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 09:35 PM
1

The current medical consensus is that there are risks and benefits, but neither are big enough to outweigh the other. If you find an article saying otherwise, it is likely ignoring the other side of the argument.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 08:16 PM
1

Is it my decision to defer to the child when I let him decide if he wants to cut his arms off? This makes absolutely no sense. Nice strawman though Not a straw man, easily demonstrable fact. As a parent, you get to make certain decisions regarding your children. One of these decisions is whether to get a male child circumcised. When faced with this option, you can choose: Choose circumcision Choose not to circumcise, discuss it with the child when they are older, let them decide Choose never to …
/r/MensRights27/01/11 07:46 PM
1

Lastly, your username includes the word jew. I can't really take your opinion on this issue seriously. From the guy whose name includes the word buffoon.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:21 PM
1

Lol, that is your decision to defer to the child Nice try, though.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:19 PM
2

That website is clearly biased. It cites one study from the Journal of Boyhood Science (I can't even find that JOURNAL on PubMed or SpringerLink) which estimates a MASSIVE incidence of death following circumcision, then points to scattered case reports, many of which are from South Africa. TL;DR: link is complete garbage
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:18 PM
-1

To summarize the science, the benefits of circumcision are marginal but there are risks associated. Because there is no clear medical answer to be had, this is a personal decision to be made by the parents. End of story.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:11 AM
1

Did you read that article, or even the abstract? The author found the benefits of circumcision outweighed the risks!
/r/MensRights27/01/11 12:07 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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