TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dusters Archive

View 0 posts and 81 comments by dusters 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)
-1

It's a scholarship. There are thousands of niche scholarships that are based on race, sex, age, study, location, etc. This really isnt a big deal.
/r/MensRights26/10/19 05:06 PM
30

The much better comparison would be a lesbian calling the male body disgusting.
/r/MensRights20/10/19 07:23 PM
-31

And people wonder why everyone thinks mens rights groups are considered immature misogynists.
/r/MensRights27/03/19 02:35 AM
7

It was a troll. Guy said he caught were with both of her legs behind her head.
/r/MensRights11/02/19 01:28 PM
84

That's not just a women thing. I see weird comments about being willing to drag your balls over glass to sniff a fart of a hit woman all the time.
/r/MensRights05/01/19 04:21 AM
2

"That US Sheriff" isn't exactly a great source.
/r/MensRights05/08/18 07:13 PM
1

That's the federal definition which is irrelevant in most cases.
/r/MensRights26/06/18 04:40 PM
3

That's the maximum possible penalty. People rarely get the maximum possible penalty.
/r/MensRights01/04/18 05:47 PM
4

That isn't how this works...
/r/MensRights23/07/17 01:19 AM
1

This isn't family court exclusive. If you get properly served and the court has jx and you don't show up, lose get a default judgment against you. This isn't some anti male conspiracy.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 01:18 AM
1

That's literally how any default judgment works. If someone she's you and dobt respond they get a default judgment and you lose.
/r/MensRights23/07/17 01:05 AM
5

I know its up to the prosecutor, that's why I made my comment. But that's not what the quote said. The quote said it was up for the victim's mother refusing to press charges, which is just incorrect.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 11:22 PM
193

Fort Myers Police says the girl would have faced misdemeanor battery charges, but that the boy's mother has refused to press charges. She wants the girls' parents to hand out a punishment instead." That's not how this works.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 09:19 PM
18

Also, it isn't an attack on free speech. It's an exercise of free speech and doesn't call for anyone's speech to be inhibited.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:30 AM
10

Because some of the causes interest me. I'm not even sure its just the fringes though. I see just plainly wrong stuff posted here and upvoted. I mean the top post here right now is literally complaining about putting the toilet seat down. You want to be associated with that?
/r/MensRights26/04/17 04:11 AM
49

This shit is why I distance myself from anything MR related. So much fringe cultures that are just absolutely bonkers.
/r/MensRights26/04/17 03:02 AM
1

There's no legal grey area here. Multiple people can commit assault.
/r/PussyPassDenied23/04/17 03:34 AM
1

Well he committed assault so.....
/r/PussyPassDenied23/04/17 03:33 AM
0

There are, but knowing that sovereign immunity is isn't like specializing in an area of law. It is a pretty basic concept that any attorney should know.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 05:53 PM
3

If you were a layer you would know what sovereign immunity means. Hint; it has nothing to do with foreign diplomats.
/r/MensRights20/03/17 03:49 PM
1

One includes your body along with another soon to be human, the other is deciding something for a human who does not have the capacity to decide for them-self. It is different.
/r/MensRights12/03/17 01:14 AM
2

Stay classy.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 08:20 PM
3

Sure, but again I never claimed otherwise. I was strictly pointing out to the comment saying they were the same isn't true.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 08:12 PM
1

All of that is correct, I just never argued against any of it. I simply argued that they aren't the same thing.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:51 PM
-3

My logic never let anyone do anything, or talked about being upset. I simply said they are different, which they are.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:50 PM
3

I argued it is different because babies can't make their own choice. That doesn't mean I endorse any decisions an adult makes for a baby. I don't understand why that is difficult for you to grasp.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:02 PM
-14

It is still different because newborns are not able to make the decision for themselves, while women can.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 07:00 PM
-17

An abortion includes a woman's own body, circumcision does not. They are different.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 06:53 PM
-6

That isn't even remotely what I was arguing.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 06:05 PM
242

Right, but it still IS different. Whether it is acceptable or not is a whole new discussion, but it is being intellectually dishonest to claim that it isn't different.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 05:47 PM
-3

I came to terms with it just fine
/r/MensRights11/03/17 05:30 PM
508

I mean it is different. We make choices for babies all the time because they can't make choices for themselves.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 05:28 PM
3

Just because someone makes an anonymous accusation doesn't mean you will be arrested.
/r/MensRights01/02/17 08:24 PM
1

That sounds like a giant waste of money.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 04:55 PM
1

Yours is also a terrible saying. For the vast majority of crimes, intent does major. Mens Rea is a large section of any 1Ls Criminal Law class for a reason.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 08:23 PM
2

Stop throwing around legal bullshit you know nothing about. Egregious case of not following evidence standards. No. The Federal Rules of Evidence 401 states that Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Moreover, relevant evidence is admissible in evidence unless an exclusion applies, "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is s…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 04:36 PM
1

Because testimony is a form of evidence, and things like DNA aren't always there. Crimes like conspiracy would be pretty much impossible to prosecute otherwise.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 04:32 PM
-1

Uh, society should definitely strive to make people feel safe it is is feasible to do so and not overly burdensome on other people.
/r/MensRights19/12/16 02:03 AM
1

Your analogies are bad and you should feel bad.
/r/MensRights24/11/16 01:57 AM
1

Your logic fucking sucks.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 02:06 AM
5

Title IX requires them to.
/r/MensRights05/07/16 10:08 PM
2

Rape under the legal sense is a made up phrase. To say "He did not rape her. Under any possible current or future legal definition of rape" is just ignorant. Rape is whatever the legislature defines it to be.
/r/MensRights23/06/16 10:43 PM
1

How about neither because mandatory minimums are fucking stupid?
/r/MensRights23/06/16 10:41 PM
14

Actually the law is there because child support is meant for the child, so in the eyes of the law they don't really care about the situations of the parents, they just want to do the best for the child. Not saying that is the best way to do it but that's what it is.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:58 PM
-2

Uhh, what? That doesn't happen. The system has a lot of problems, but they don't just kick you out without any hearings.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 09:15 PM
1

Not only is that wrong, it is terrible legal advice. Why would you want to go to a criminal lawyer for a divorce? That's like going to a pediatrician for surgery.
/r/MensRights16/07/15 09:13 PM
14

Yeah the author admitted that they were "dead wrong"
/r/MensRights22/04/15 05:13 PM
4

This sub has been overtaken by TRP types for a while now. I won't even associate myself with the men's rights movement because of all the fringe wackos involved.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 07:41 PM
4

Brought it up to my GF just last week and it went over fine. Don't date idiots (or demand an unfair prenup. No, you don't deserve everything just because she stays home and watches the kids and you work) and it isn't a problem.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 04:57 AM
1

No, you can't, and that isn't what Ricco says. I mean you can technically sue, but that doesn't mean you will win. Ricco was a very fact specific case that hinged on the city disregarding test results in promotion practices.
/r/MensRights06/04/15 08:56 PM
2

Give it 4 days. The independent review by Columbia is coming out of Sunday.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 09:44 PM
1

I don't really see how you can, and it pretty much has played out, they already said they aren't trying her for murder.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 07:18 PM
-7

That's a pretty terrible straw man. They never implied the original choice was the infants, they even said the opposite actually. They are saying the decision to attempt to reverse it is a personal one, which is 100% correct.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 06:35 AM
3

It isn't attempted murder. For murder in a scenario like this, you either have to try to kill someone or commit an act with reckless disregard for human life. But for attempted murder, you cannot attempt to commit an a that has a mens rea requirement of recklessness resulting in murder. She clearly wasn't trying to kill the other women, she was just fucking nuts and trying to get a baby. If the woman would have died, she would have committed depraved heart murder, but because she lived you canno…
/r/MensRights28/03/15 06:18 AM
-6

This isn't a men's right issue, this is a legal issue about whether fetuses are considered humans that has been pretty hotly contested for a while now.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 09:43 PM
2

That's not how it works.
/r/MensRights27/03/15 09:33 PM
-2

Most mainstream feminists also think redfems are crazy.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:27 PM
-10

These against feminism posts are just fucking stupid. The two views are not exclusive of each other. There are plenty of feminists who also support men's rights.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 05:46 PM
7

Because the media has portrayed it as a man's disease. You see men on tv/movies getting heart attacks all the time, but I can't recall a woman ever having one.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 11:40 PM
0

Uhh its a pretty big stereotype of stressed out overweight men getting heart attacks.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:24 AM
1

It isn't labeling it anything, it is pointing out the fact that heart disease does not only affect men.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:09 AM
0

Get this shit post out of here. The ad is pretty clearly trying to make the point that it ALSO affects women, not ONLY affects women.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 07:01 AM
-1

ITT: armchair lawyers who don't know shit about law.
/r/MensRights28/07/14 07:52 PM
1

Sorry, it gets hard keeping straight which armchair lawyer is giving out terrible legal advice.
/r/MensRights20/07/14 05:57 AM
0

"Those aren't your only choices at all, and common law totally disagrees. There are plenty of situations where you cannot retaliate. If a girl slaps you and walks away, how exactly are you still at the mercy of their violence?" http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2b0nwl/tim_mcgraw_slaps_a_woman_after_she_hits_his_groin/cj11t8v?context=3 Now please stfu and stop giving terrible law advice.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 04:39 PM
0

I literally presented the scenario like 3 posts up. Reading comprehension, lacking.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 08:08 AM
0

It's not like you supported any of your arguments with any evidence either, but I'll bite anyways. The Restatement of Torts the Second Section 66 states you may not use self-defense unless you "reasonably believes that the other's conduct will cause him death or serious bodily harm which can be prevented only by the use of such force." In the scenario I present, where a woman slaps a man and then walks away, self-defense is not a viable defense to your assault and battery of hitting her back. Yo…
/r/MensRights19/07/14 02:04 AM
-1

Okay armchair lawyer.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 10:07 PM
-1

You say this, but common law disagrees with you completely
/r/MensRights18/07/14 08:35 PM
-1

Well no shit that is what you will claim, but that isn't always the case. There are plenty of scenarios where this could easily be disproved.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 05:11 PM
1

Those aren't your only choices at all, and common law totally disagrees. There are plenty of situations where you cannot retaliate. If a girl slaps you and walks away, how exactly are you still at the mercy of their violence?
/r/MensRights18/07/14 05:10 PM
-4

The person who initiated the assault wouldn't be hard-pressed to sue at all if you simply retaliate when no further injury is likely. If a girl slaps you and you knock her out yeah you can file a countersuit but her damages are very likely to be much more than yours are. I might be assuming a lot but you are putting yourself in unneeded danger of claims but retaliating to everyone who assaults you.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 04:26 PM
-4

I don't think you know what self-defense is. It isn't hitting anyone who hits you, it is preventing yourself from further harm.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 03:49 PM
-4

Have fun getting arrested/sued. The point of self-defense isn't retaliation, it is if you have a legitimate fear of further harm.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 03:48 PM
0

Yes, saying that men should be able to defend themselves will TOTALLY get downvoted in Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights18/07/14 03:46 PM
8

Obviously we don't because we keep posting shit like this and it always gets upvoted.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 11:59 PM
6

It's pretty easy to cherrypick 6 stats to make one side look good.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 09:36 PM
2

The test to get into law school is literally 3/4 logical reasoning.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 11:24 PM
2

Ehh I wouldn't say that. English is one of the most common undergrads for lawyers, who use logic and reason more than just about any profession.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 11:11 PM
0

Because there are many different spectrums of feminism.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:37 PM
1

Anything is better than that shithole was with all the facebook posts and memes.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 03:36 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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