TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dustyneverforget Archive

View 1 post and 29 comments by dustyneverforget 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

It's not a strawman, since we're talking about the same thing. Don't ignorantly throw around terms for logical fallacies that you don't understand. You're diluting intellectual discussion by doing so. I said that the so-called "sanctity of life" has an evolutionary basis, I'm going to assume you're an atheist, because I get this argument a lot from /r/atheism. Funnily enough, even other atheists step in to point out how wrong it is. No, the sanctity of life does not have a evolutionary basis. Th…
/r/MensRights03/03/12 04:16 AM
-1

On the contrary, personhood is not based on scientific reasoning. You are spreading lies and ignorance. You need to understand your views are not objective.
/r/MensRights03/03/12 01:01 AM
-2

The fact that you weren't raped and pillaged is not based on evidence. It's based on the fact that enough people believe your pathetic existence is worth something. The belief in the sanctity of human life is not based on scientific reasoning. That being said, the idea that an infant is less intelligent or "human" than a dog is ignorant and absurd. Studies have been done on infants, showing perception that you're not going to find in animals (off the top of my head, I remember a study where they…
/r/MensRights02/03/12 04:35 AM
1

You're not supposed to read this and think Hmm, maybe there is merit to infanticide. You're supposed to realize how wrong late term and partial birth abortion is.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 05:37 AM
-5

But when they were born - not people. You're a sick human being, and it's revolting that anyone upvoted you.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 05:34 AM
2

Fiction is not didactic. It is not a political statement. It can be, but at it's core, it isn't. Fiction is meant to entertain. If you want to actively work against something, start by creating it yourself or supporting those that are already doing so, rather than telling others to change the way they write. This whole thing reminds me of the preface in Fight Club, where the author, Chuck Palahniuk noted a negative reviewer, who criticized the book for not dealing with the issue of racism.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:27 AM
8

The point is that female characters are always (and when I say always I don't mean literally always, I mean the vast majority of the time) contrived to be sexually appealing. That's not a point, though. What are you trying to say, that we should actively work against this? I have no problem with an author who wants to make a female version of Jonah Hex. But to say that we need to make one because "not having one is wrong" is pretty ridiculous.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:08 AM
15

I don't see why some concessions can't be made. I don't see why concessions need to be made. Fiction is not a state fair. It does not have to cater towards everyone. If you don't like a certain piece of fiction, move on. And again, how many demographics do we need to pander towards?
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:02 AM
8

There should be female monsters, elderly female characters, and others which are not traditionally seen as attractive. Why? Can you explain why? Why should a game have to constantly have all things equal? Does this mean we need to have a representative of every race in the game? Do we need to have a character from every country? Do we need a gay, bisexual, lesbian, and transgender character as well? Omission does not equal sexism. Pride and Prejudice is not sexist because it doesn't also feature…
/r/MensRights26/02/12 11:59 PM
1

I'm fairly certain that the New Testament is pretty much opposed to divorce. Jesus himself gave the only valid reason for a divorce as infidelity.
/r/MensRights13/11/11 09:38 PM
10

No, it doesn't. This type of oversensitive Women's Studies BS is the type of crap I'd expect to see in a 400-level 20th Century Lesbian Literature course or on /r/feminism. But the hegemony hegemonizes hegimonically. You're losing all perspective, sir.
/r/MensRights26/10/11 01:00 AM
5

nongendered words I thought that the goal was to not turn into feminists . . .
/r/MensRights26/10/11 12:58 AM
2

So some woman agrees with what you're saying, and you turn it around on her? What the hell is wrong with you? She didn't say that a submissive man wasn't a man. She just said that she preferred men who took charge. How is that bad? Is it bad if a guy wants a girl who is somewhat submissive? I thought /r/mensrights was against this hypersensitive, politically correct BS that says that we need to have perfect egalitarianism at all times.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:16 PM
1

This didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. I expected that this would more dime-a-dozen Woman's Studies BS about how "sexism is ingrained in our language" and that it's an example of hegemony hegemonizing hegemonically. Her point just seemed to be that it's not a good idea to talk to a girl like one of your guy buddies, especially if you're pursuing her romantically. I mean, that isn't so bad; take it or leave it. That was the plot of Scary Movie 2, I believe.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 12:34 AM
1

That's a damn good detective.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 10:20 PM
4

Rape is already considered the most vile crime in our society, worse than murder, torture, or theft.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 11:50 PM
2

I wish that had ended better. I'm against the idea that telling a woman to be careful is the equivalent of blaming the victim, but I'm not sure there's a correlation between how she dresses and her chances of getting raped.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 08:06 PM
2

Friends are the worst for getting advice from. A friend is going to be loyal to you, and they are only getting your side of the story. A friend can never do your significant other justice.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:23 PM
2

That's different, and I think it's reasonable that both partners in a marriage will occasionally share things with their closest friends It is different: it's worse. Friends will almost always take your side. They aren't objective and should not be trusted. A sibling who isn't afraid to tell you off would make a better choice for a confidante, but the best choice is just discussing things with your SO without bringing outsiders into the loop.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:21 PM
1

My personal life is personal and between my husband and myself. You are a mature person. I could count on both hands the amount of relationships I've seen crumble due one person sharing intimate details with outside parties.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 11:17 PM
1

People have no skill in predicting whether or not they are going to get divorce. That's not a particularly good excuse though, is it? People generally have no skill at picking out a lemon in a used car lot, but that doesn't mean they should just go out and buy a car anyway. And I submit to you that it's possible to become a better judge of character. After all, a person's friends and family are often able to see things about a person's significant other that that person wasn't able to see themse…
/r/MensRights03/05/11 10:51 PM
0

You don't know, but you can be reasonably sure. There are certainly things in life you just don't do unless you are fairly certain that another person is going to come through for you. One example might be, say, trapeze acrobatics under a 300 foot drop. Another example would be marriage.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 05:14 AM
3

A car crash is an acceptable risk of driving a car. Infidelity isn't an acceptable risk of marriage. To use a more accurate analogy, would you even consider sky diving if you thought for one minute that your instructor might screw up? I certainly wouldn't.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 05:12 AM
2

Gotta agree with the Prince on this one. If you anticipate infidelity or divorce as even a minute possibility, you have no business getting married. Marriage is for lifers and people trying to get a Green Card.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 01:55 AM
4

I agree with you on one level, but it's not the lessen to be giving to middle aged married men. Any person who would cheat on his spouse because he's bored or doesn't feel fulfilled is a horrible human being that deserves to be driven out of society. It'd make more sense if the protagonist was a young bachelor, who had to learn that a little confidence and assertiveness worked wonders.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 05:18 AM
3

I thought it was funny at first, but by the time they were apologizing for wars, I was raging like First of the North Star. I feel like I need to wash the bad taste out of my mouth. Interestingly, aside from the casual "women are nurturers, men are barbarians" sexism, I notice that there was even some traditional sexism against women in there. Did you guys catch that? It's pretty much, "yeah, men are logical and scientific, but we lost the heart which only women can give us."
/r/MensRights06/04/11 01:19 PM
3

Makes you hate women? Dude, by the end of it, I wanted to cave those guys' heads in with a pick axe. Blame the people that are to blame.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 01:14 PM
1

Oh, that makes sense. I thought it just meant, "don't get divorced". I still upvoted it.
/r/MensRights06/04/11 10:44 AM
3

I smiled at the thought of other subreddits spilling into /r/atheism and contaminating it. Now you know how the rest of us feel, Chuckles.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 03:42 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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