TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

elronhubbardmexico Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by elronhubbardmexico 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

Ummm....no.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:08 PM
1

Yep, pretty obvious from just that interview that she wasn't raped. Yet the usual suspects are there to lap up every word she says as the gospel.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:06 PM
2

Jesus, you're obviously retarded. But I'm ready to go whenever Paul calls.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:45 PM
2

Again, nonsense. It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lawyer willing to sue Emma pro bono.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:36 PM
2

Nonsense. There are plenty of lawyers who would take a case like this pro bono, either out of principle, for the huge exposure, or both.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:33 PM
1

LOL. Can you read, bro? I was quoting him and saying "there is NO requirement" that you prove the falsity beyond a reasonable doubt. Goodness.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 03:12 PM
8

A lawyer wouldn't have to take it pro bono, but instead simply on a contingency fee. Columbia has deep pockets.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:59 PM
3

Who's talking about a conviction? He wasn't even formally charged. In any case, your logic here is jacked up something fierce. The evidence not being sufficient to bring criminal charges in no way prevents the accused from affirmatively proving his innocence (again, by a preponderance of the evidence -- not the ridiculous 100% crap to which you refer) in a civil case as part of a slander claim. You've already acknowledged you're not a lawyer -- so why do you continue to talk out of your ass? Edi…
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:50 PM
2

"In this case there wasn't enough evidence to find that it was rape, and therefore there isn't enough evidence to find that it wasn't rape either." Wut?
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:45 PM
4

It's actually called "preponderance of the evidence" in the U.S., but it's the same thing (i.e., more likely than not). This cat has no idea about which he speaks.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:43 PM
2

Then why the hell did you explicitly ask about "freedom of speech"?
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:41 PM
2

Well, for starters, there is no requirement that you prove that the allegedly defamatory statements were false "beyond a reasonable doubt". Instead, that element of a slander claim must be proven merely by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). Free speech doesn't have shit to do with a slander case in which the plaintiff is a private individual. And, no, her self-serving testimony that it was rape in no way automatically defeats his slander claim. The jurors are the trier…
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:38 PM
13

Here's an unintentionally hilarious interview with the liar.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:12 PM
7

Hint: the vast, vast majority of the time, plaintiff's lawyers take cases like this on contingency. The plaintiff doesn't have to pay a dime out of pocket to pursue such a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:06 PM
1

No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:05 PM
6

I've seen this lunatic interviewed, and it was painfully obvious she was lying about the whole thing.
/r/MensRights24/04/15 02:03 PM
4

Sounds like you're bicurious
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:34 PM
5

Sweet Jesus, what a bunch of nonsense. Who in all of hell believes human beings have rights only insofar as they're "granted to you by the government"? Some scary shit right there.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 01:20 AM
1

Amazing.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:28 PM
1

The account relayed in the Rolling Stone article is pretty difficult to believe. She goes to her first fraternity party with a date, and her date immediately leads her upstairs to a pitch-black room where she is brutally gang-raped? Never drinks a thing? I'm not saying nothing illegal/inappropriate happened, but that version of events doesn't pass the smell test -- nor do a number of other aspects mentioned in the Washington Examiner piece.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 05:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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