TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

defeasiblefee Archive

View 2 posts and 53 comments by defeasiblefee on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

But how can you say it's entirely false when she/he just provided you with an example where a man and a woman were not paid the same for the same work? I understand arguing that the same discrepancy is not prevalent in all fields, but certainly that gap in pay is evidence of a gap in pay in the given circumstance? Maybe you can argue it's caused by something other than gender, but it's still evidence of an imbalance, as Amy Adams is more well known than Renner, worked more days than he did, had …
/r/MensRights20/10/15 07:46 PM
-1

Funny, I assumed "pay gap" meant "gap in pay."
/r/MensRights20/10/15 04:47 PM
1

Are you clairvoyant? Where are you getting this information?
/r/MensRights09/10/15 02:10 PM
4

He's just as overweight as Amy Schumer, but I was pointing to John Goodman in the photo. Amy Schumer is a comedian also. And not all those people are comedians. Further, what makes that chick running a sex symbol? It's just a running magazine. You said men aren't on magazines, I'm showing you they are.
/r/TheRedPill08/10/15 07:34 PM
1

That is a cite from 1994. How are we supposed to know if that is even true anymore? Also, those numbers are just for sex reassignment surgery, and it's pretty well known knowledge that more MTFs get the surgery than FTMs because it's monumentally easier to cut off a penis and create a vagina than to create a penis. And I'm sure that was even more true 21 years ago...
/r/TheRedPill08/10/15 07:27 PM
2

Overweight guys are never featured on the covers of any magazines, ok. But wait! https://sp.yimg.com/xj/th?id=OIP.M3d24e924dc9bee08f5d20c7ad86e5f34H0&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300 http://www.janmarcel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/02-jan-marcel-jonah-hill-british-gq-magazine-cover.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Rep1NRfPTaA/SJPinXgBP9I/AAAAAAAAAQ8/Zm__6C6MdSQ/s400/seth-rogen-gq-cover-big.jpg http://www.rapzines.com/images/Complex_Magazine_Seth_Rogan_Cover.jpg http://parade.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/…
/r/TheRedPill08/10/15 07:13 PM
1

What makes you think it's only women contributing to this supposed unequal parenting dynamic? You seriously don't think there are men out there who perpetuate it? Who think a woman should be doing things so he can bring home the bacon or whatever?
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:41 PM
3

Don't know why you are making such baseless claims. http://greencitytransit.blogspot.com/2008/06/gas-prices-are-hitting-amish.html http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/12/high-price-of-oil-drives-amish-switch-to-propane-gas/31789/ http://www.nwitimes.com/lifestyles/amish-aren-t-immune-to-high-gas-prices/article_37186e85-9160-5f92-8812-70f420e9fda4.html http://www.journalreview.com/news/local/article_8640e261-0083-5c88-972c-706f85534237.html http://static.record-eagle.com/2007/jun/11a…
/r/MensRights07/10/15 05:52 PM
2

I get what you are saying, but for the record, the Amish are, in fact, impacted by gas prices in a number of ways.
/r/MensRights07/10/15 04:18 PM
0

How is that going to change the rights women have?
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:35 PM
3

What leads you to say women have more rights than men? Do you have certain rights you are most concerned with?
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:34 PM
1

Why was this removed?
/r/MensRights07/10/15 03:24 PM
2

You can't subscribe one crazy woman's statement to feminist ideology. That would be like me saying that because there are some men out there who think raping a woman is okay or justifiable, it must be what all men believe. Quite the logical fallacy (hasty generalization).
/r/MensRights02/10/15 04:42 PM
-18

LMFAO Yep, I'm sure all the evil scary feminists are off in a corner somewhere congratulating themselves on this kid's suicide. Their ideology is totally that people should be falsely accused of rape and later commit suicide. Obviously the correct solution is to blame feminists for the existence of false rape accusations. I think the best thing we can do moving forward is to have NO RAPE ACCUSATIONS. Everyone just keep your rapes and sexual assaults to yourselves, because if there are no accusat…
/r/MensRights01/10/15 06:29 PM
1

How was he the victim? Maryland has a 4 year age gap provision, so a 15 year old and an 18 year old can have sex without it being a crime... Each state has different laws on the matter and different ages of consent.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 06:28 PM
1

I'd be willing to wager the ones against letting men have long hair are the ones who have been fighting against gay marriage.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:53 PM
0

Where does it say that it then automatically became rape to the courts?
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:51 PM
1

Where is that implication? You just pulling it out of your ass? There are several different rape statutes in each state to help categorize the egregiousness of a crime and to help determine the appropriate sentence. No one thinks they are all the same, stop with the embellishment and distortion.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:50 PM
1

His appeal and the opinion that followed was what clarified the law. So we now have clear and definitive wording. Or at least as clear and definitive as most rape laws can get.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:46 PM
1

Where did they say that? Show me the part of the opinion that says that it was overturned on a technicality and that he was guilty of rape. Can't find it? Thought so, because that never happened.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:44 PM
1

What are you even talking about? What is ignoring reality? You clearly don't know anything about law or the legal system to be calling pretty basic legal analysis (and just being literate) a "pedantic interpretation."
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:38 PM
2

What exactly do you think I am wrong about? Also, not quite sure you know what pedantic means because nothing I said was irrelevant to the discussion or concerned with minutiae, but nice try.
/r/MensRights28/09/15 04:34 PM
0

Yes, there are definitely times where if I were a juror I would utilize nullification if I thought a law was unconstitutional or should not exist, but I think the problem is that an alarming number of jurors don't know they have that power and almost all states prevent such an instruction from being given. Plus, a prosecutor is likely going to ask probing questions during voir dire to figure out who to strike from the juror pool.
/r/MensRights26/09/15 01:58 AM
-1

What about it?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:22 PM
1

First of all, criminal courts don't use innocent, so you're wrong out of the gate. You use "guilty" and "not guilty." The court did not rule this was rape, because the conviction was overturned and they defined rape without getting into whether what this guy did was rape, that is why they remanded it for a new trial. So I don't know what the hell makes you think the court thought this was rape. If they were so confident it was rape and that the judge's errors did not affect the verdict (i.e. har…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 08:01 PM
2

No, that is not what the case said at all. Try reading it instead of attempting to discern their holding from one sentence. Or, maybe choose a more complete sentence from the case, such as: "A woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape." So that interpretation you posit is completely false and the sex up until her revocation of …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:55 PM
3

No, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals reversal and remand but had a different holding. That is as far as the case got. And it wasn't a technicality or harmless error, they ruled that the judge's error in not properly instructing the jury was not harmless and therefore could have tainted their finding of guilt, and therefore the case had to be re-tried. Read the case before pulling this stuff out of your ass.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:50 PM
1

It wasn't on a technicality...it was because of the judge's failure to properly answer juror questions. In other words, it was overturned because the jurors found him guilty and did not properly know what the law was...
/r/MensRights25/09/15 07:47 PM
1

What do you mean? Where are you getting that they are using their emotions and not facts to come to conclusions? Also, you are aware that a judge can override a guilty finding if he thinks it's irrational, right?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:04 PM
1

By having both parties testify to what happened. Then the jury decides whether it was reasonable or if the person was continuing despite lack of consent. The testimony is the evidence, and it is weighted according to how much credibility the jury accords to each witness. That's how most cases work, not just rape. There really isn't much else we can do other than the "he said she said" method we have right now, and despite how many people here seem to think it works, more often than not jurors ar…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:52 PM
3

No, the appellate court overturned the conviction and the sentence. They ruled that the trial had errors in it that harmed the defendant, so they would have to do it all over again to get a conviction. I don't know what happened after that or if they did a new trial.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:29 PM
1

WTF are you talking about? The court wrote that opinon. You're just making bald and nonsensical assertions based off of what, your hunch that courts are convicting people of retroactive rape?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:18 PM
-1

Taken from the case: Held: "A woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape." When was he convicted again? Also, what did the jury instructions look like on re-trial, assuming it was actually tried again like you say? I guarantee they don't say the nonsense people are trying to spew here about retroactive rape...
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:14 PM
1

No problem. Glad at least one person here seems to actually want to understand the law rather than remain outraged based on misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:09 PM
-1

Well it depends, sometimes juries dole out sentences but that's rare, but I was just talking about his guilty conviction. I imagine the judge is the one who sentenced him in this case. I just meant that the judge didn't like, see this case and ignore facts and law to punish the kid. My guess is he didn't have a good understanding of the law in this case and did a terrible job clarifying it for the jury.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 04:07 PM
20

A jury dealt out the conviction, but yes, the judge did not correctly instruct the jury, which happens all the time and is part of why appeals courts exist--to clarify laws and rectify such mistakes. The appeals court clarified the laws. That should help defendants in the future. But yes, still definitely sucks for Baby.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:41 PM
-4

It pretty obviously means that saying no during sex cancels out the consent she gave before they began having sex so now there is no longer consent to keep going. That doesnt mean you committed rape retroactively, that would be ridiculous and make no sense, I agree, and it's explicitly not the case here. If you read the cases and understand the procedural history, it's easier to understand that language, because the entire rest of the case hammers the point home. From the same case: "A woman may…
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:32 PM
5

Taken from the case: Held: "A woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape." Now to address that quote you are all misreading: We conclude that post-penetration withdrawal of consent negates initial consent for the purposes of sexual offense *272 crimes and, when coupled with the other elements, may constitute the crime of rape." …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:27 PM
-1

Taken from the case: Held: "A woman may withdraw consent for vaginal intercourse after penetration has occurred and, after consent has been withdrawn, the continuation of vaginal intercourse by force or the threat of force may constitute rape." Now to address that quote you are all misreading: We conclude that post-penetration withdrawal of consent negates initial consent for the purposes of sexual offense *272 crimes and, when coupled with the other elements, may constitute the crime of rape." …
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:26 PM
-3

No it isn't; you are just exaggerating the law. The kid's conviction was overturned because the trial court messed up its instructions.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:13 PM
-9

No, it's not saying that at all. Why don't you read the case if you are having such a hard time understanding. State v. Baby, 404 Md. 220 (2008).
/r/MensRights25/09/15 03:12 PM
-17

So the better alternative is what, to just let you finish even if they express they don't want to? WTF kind of basis would that set?
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:20 PM
60

His conviction was overturned.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:01 PM
-13

It's saying that if a woman consents to having sex, and then during the act, she withdraws that consent, continuing to have sex with her after that withdrawal of consent is rape. It's like going over to a friend's house, and then the friend deciding you need to leave and telling you to do so. If you continue to stay there, you are trespassing.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:59 PM
-20

How the hell is that terrifying? It's saying that if a woman consents to having sex, and then during the act, she withdraws that consent, continuing to have sex with her after that withdrawal of consent is rape, which is obviously should be...
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:58 PM
8

In the paragraph right below it tells you that the conviction was overturned because of a faulty jury instruction...
/r/MensRights25/09/15 01:50 PM
1

I didn't say they weren't capable of forcible rape, I guess your example just read differently as there's nothing to indicate that is what happened. So you are saying a mentally incapacitated drunk teenager forcibly raped an adult woman that did not consent, and that is more her fault than the juvenile's? Why? Even if she gave the minor alcohol, why does that reasonably lead to being raped? As for the brainwashing, mistakenly thinking she wanted it may not be a defense, but if you are a defendan…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 06:12 PM
2

But in your example with the mentally impaired minor who was given drugs and alcohol by the woman, isn't the woman the rapist in that case? I can definitely see how the lines are blurred when both the man and the woman are impaired or if the man is super drunk and the woman is going along with things without saying anything, but the jump from that to flirting being entrapment or meaning she wants sex is drastic and difficult to follow. Seems like the situations you've provided don't so much blur…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:44 PM
7

But making a bad judgment call isn't the same thing as being responsible for someone raping you... We should be teaching young people not to get shitfaced because it is dangerous, but it's only dangerous (aside from health and injury reasons) because of the bad people out there who do things like rape or rob drunk or otherwise "vulnerable" people. So really, how can it be the rape victims fault they are raped, when it was the rapist that was making drinking unsafe in the first place?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:04 PM
3

So which things would a woman do that make you want to say the rape was their fault?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:31 PM
2

So if she is responsible for putting herself in a dangerous situation but not for the rape that occurred, which you just said, doesn't that mean she isn't at fault for the rape?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:20 PM
2

What kind of conduct would count as being partially the woman's fault she was raped?
/r/MensRights09/09/15 04:17 PM
1

That magazine is for domestic violence victims, so it makes sense that they'd include something for single mothers... Also, they only did that after they posted something for fathers.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 02:58 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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