TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

danieljamesfair Archive

View 0 posts and 39 comments by danieljamesfair 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)
-6

But that isn't consent. There are no conditions to consent. It's not as though you can say "Well, sure you said no, but you were wearing sexual clothing." It is unconditional.
/r/MensRights23/05/15 11:22 AM
-3

You're saying that coercion is the only form of rape? What the fuck? So having sex with someone who says no isn't rape?
/r/MensRights23/05/15 11:13 AM
-11

Wow. What a fucking terrible definition of rape. It's like you don't understand the idea of informed consent. It isn't about what you would've done, or what you did, it's about how far you could understand what was being asked of you. A problem with your definition is that it doesn't scale. For instance, why is having sex with children illegal? Because they cannot consent at all. Why is having sex with drunk people illegal? Because they cannot consent at that moment. That's the usual definition.…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 11:06 AM
-6

Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape” — clearly referring not just to attacks involving violence or incapacitation (for which few would demand a verbal “no” as proof of rape), but encounters in which a woman yields to unwanted overtures, like I did. Yeah, rape is (should be defined as) sex to which one of the parties has not consented. That does not mean that the sex must be forced or aggravated; it on…
/r/MensRights23/05/15 10:03 AM
3

The UK rape law specifies that it must be done with a penis. See here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
/r/MensRights23/05/15 09:51 AM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 09:55 AM
1

I didn't think of that. Nice one. If they were evenly matched there, what then would you look for?
/r/MensRights02/05/15 01:07 AM
1

Right, there are two threads to this: human rights and good causes. Let's be clear that a cause that could potentially violate human rights is not necessarily a bad cause. For instance, the desire to eradicate terrorism is a good cause that could lead is to violating human rights, but as long as we don't violate those human rights, we can eradicate terrorism in an ethical way. Similarly, gender equality is great, but could potentially lead us to violating human rights. As long as we don't violat…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 01:05 AM
1

Stopping the spread of rabies is bad? Because puppies are involved? What the fuck?
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:49 AM
1

Did you actually read any of them? Tu quoque is not a fallacy committed in this argument, and perhaps the fallacy fallacy is being committed by the people in this thread. Honestly. What a dumb thing to say. Half of them aren't even relevant.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:47 AM
1

Two evenly matched candidates ─ what do you do? One of them is black, one white ─ are you a racist if you choose the white guy? One of them is disabled, the other not ─ are you anti-disabled if you choose the able-bodied one if it doesn't affect the job? One of them is a man, the other a woman. Is there any reason to choose the man over the woman? What about the woman over the man? How about you chose the man if you need more men in your office, and you choose the woman if you need more women? S…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:42 AM
0

Let's not forget that at their heart, human rights are only law, and law can change. When someone who doesn't believe in human rights (philosopher Jeremy Bentham, for example) hears you say "BUT MY HUMAN RIGHTS", it sounds the same as the religious trying to preserve their homophobic legal beliefs because of their religious rights. Ultimately, and I'm not saying it is this way, but if it turned out that we have definitive proof that affirmative action was justified, and only the shaky "they're s…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:35 AM
1

But discrimination is good in certain situations. For instance, discrimination betwen combatants and non-combatants in military situations, which means that civilians and medical officers, among others, won't be harmed in battle (provided this rule is followed). Now, I'm not saying that affirmative action is necessarily good, but I am saying that "discrimination = bad" isn't always true. There very well might be a good reason for outlawing affirmative action, but this is not it. Discrimination c…
/r/MensRights02/05/15 12:18 AM
-1

It's as harmful as religion. The KKK, harmful; the Church of England, not so much. That a faction if the group is dickish is not a reason to avoid the whole. Eating some things will kill you. Doesn't mean you shouldn't eat.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 02:35 PM
0

Jesus Christ, nobody seems to be getting the point that children aren't being taught to hate men, it doesn't matter. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about the patriarchy right now, and I don't want to debate feminism. I want to know if you think it's true that the same way Christians who believe in open access to abortions and gay marriage are politically harmless, so too or moderate, not radical, feminists who just want more even gender representation in government and shit like that. They aren…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 08:26 AM
-1

I was defining patriarchy and matriarchy, I was not saying to what degree they are active in the UK. And besides, you're completely missing the point that there is nothing highly detrimental in this new policy.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:33 PM
-4

Haha don't even fucking joke. I speak however the hell I like and nobody has called it secondary school in the last twenty years. I went to St Peter's Church of England Aided HIGH SCHOOL and International Business College on Queens Road, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, England, and you simply cannot judge my home country from my use of English. You dick.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:30 PM
-5

A) Either you are a conspiracy nut, or you're a great actor. B) There are some laws and biases in society that benefit males over females, and this is what we call the patriarchy. There are similarly laws and biases in society that benefit females over males, and this is what we call the matriarchy. There you go, now you've seen it. And, incidentally, this is 100% what I believe.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 06:12 PM
-3

That's not my point, my point is that you defined feminism with emotive language and scare tactics, whereas sometimes feminism is harmless to men and positive for society. If we teach that in UK schools, why would you care?
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:55 PM
-7

Well it depends how you define patriarchy. There's no consensus. It could be the systematic and intentional oppression of women by men or just "there are some laws and biases in society that benefit males over females, and that is what we call the patriarchy." A run of the mill feminist isn't the same as Germaine Greer, and Greer isn't the same as Valerie Solanas. There are degrees, and some of them are not as extreme as you seem to think.
/r/MensRights07/07/14 05:10 PM
-11

I left high school two years ago, and I assure you that this has already happened. But this isn't a bad thing. After all, we are taught in history that the Holocaust was a bad thing, that slavery was evil, that British colonialism was ethically wrong, though brought some good things. We're already given a moral education in UK schools, and saying that women are equal to men in schools is already done to be honest. Likewise, no UK school will tolerate homophobia or bullying of any kind. Jesus, wh…
/r/MensRights07/07/14 04:46 PM
2

Oh of course upsetting people isn't intimidation, but bullying isn't just upsetting people. It's repeatedly upsetting someone, so much so that they live in fear of when they might next see their harassers. You get me? It's the fear that makes the difference, not the upset.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 10:50 PM
1

It's still a form of intimidation, surely? If somebody males somebody else feel fearful, that's intimidation. Cuz, you know, one of them is being intimidating.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 09:50 PM
7

I do think there is a similarity between what you're saying and a hypothetical person who says "I don't think we should have anti-bullying policies, because people should just grow up." We have a right to be free from intimidation and blackmail and whatnot.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:16 PM
2

... Teaching, midwifery, counselling, psychiatry, etc.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 10:03 PM
1

Haha sorry, corrected. Thanks mate ;)
/r/MensRights25/05/13 09:57 PM
2

Girl at my college who swears blind that women can't rape men despite us showing her British legislation saying the opposite. It's fucking ridiculous. Ed: clarity
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:45 PM
4

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is ignorance a valid defence in rape cases? Cuz IIRC, I don't think it is.
/r/MensRights20/04/13 12:01 PM
1

Oh, I get ya. Sorry, my mistake.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 05:51 PM
2

English is a Western Germanic language. It may have been heavily influenced by Latin and the other Romance Languages, but that doesn't mean it ain't Western Germanic. It developed from early German and as such keeps its family from its root. Other than that, I agree with your comment.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 10:23 AM
2

4chan, so let's be honest, this probably didn't happen. We can dream, though. Edit: why not show them the texts as well? Surely that would end it. And it's not as though a gay man can't rape a woman. The alibi with the bf I understand, but gay guys can still be rapists irrespective of sexuality.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:47 PM
1

All right then. I understand now.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:49 AM
2

Please explain his/her mistake, other than not capitalising "I". EDIT: the commentor above is correct. It's rife with grammatical errors. Also, sandwich joke. I support Prophet.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:51 AM
2

I found that quite hard to read. The handwriting is pretty bad, but more than that, how ... I don't know ... Unsettling or disturbing the message was. It sad that people would do that.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 12:49 AM
2

Let's be honest. The original image is stupid and no better than anything you'd find on 9gag. Yes, the responses are discouraging and to be discouraged, but the original image makes no real argument either.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 10:50 PM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:55 PM
0

Huh? Please explain. :D
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:09 AM
10

There's an entire team of people that hate you right now.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 11:49 PM
-2

I agree. This is obviously a joke and should be taken as such. 7/10. Would laugh again. It's not oppression, it's humour.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 09:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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