TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

flagrantly_disregard Archive

View 3 posts and 54 comments by flagrantly_disregard 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)
2

There's also no justification for beating the pulp out of someone for striking you in a non-life-threatening way. In the end it's better to not even get into the fight at all, or to appear as the peaceful victim of a violent aggressor. If you hit back and leave marks, you no longer have the high ground. Go ahead and try it on for size. No matter what the sex, most states in the union have a "duty to retreat" clause when it comes to self defense.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 11:43 PM
1

Yes, exactly this. She needs to have the entire fucking book thrown at her and then some. On top of attempted murder, charges for DV, assault and battery, arson, assault, assault with intent to do grievous injury, emotional abuse, defrauding an inkeeper, etc. Every time a man goes up to the stand, he gets the entire kitchen plus living room thrown at him with charges STACKED to the ceiling. This woman needs the equal treatment she's been benefiting form until now.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 11:33 PM
5

This is akin to saying "If all Muslims fail to always condemn the acts of terrorists who are also Muslim, then all Muslims are supporters of terrorism." Anybody who uses this against a perceived opponent is cruising for an intellectual bruising, because it's illogical to demand anything like this.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 05:01 AM
1

Would you mind pointing out which one specifically?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 07:41 AM
-1

Are you trying to be pedantic or is this a serious question?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 05:54 AM
1

What I meant is that some humans have not yet overcome the genetic predisposition to act like animals.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 04:27 AM
1

Adult male lions, when they take over a new pride of lionesses after successfully defeating the incumbent male, will kill any and all offspring that aren't his to ensure genetic purity.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 03:09 AM
3

Dirty and DANGEROUS jobs as well.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 03:02 AM
1

I'd drop the whole draft issue. It used to be a humongous issue for me at first, but in reality, only something like 6 men have been prosecuted for not registering, and even then they were never ordered to pay a dime. It really sucks when you put a point out there, and then your opponent trivializes it, and is totally right in doing so. So in sum, I would just not bother with it if I were you.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 03:00 AM
3

I can understand why you would like to wash yourself of guilt by pretending that all men are weak like you, but you're wrong. Most men are not like you, and trying to vilify and destroy other innocent men does not absolve you of responsibility for what you did. Here here!
/r/MensRights29/12/10 02:33 AM
1

and guilty of rape And Saul of Tarsus was guilty of slaughtering Christians en masse. Are you some kind of saint now? You want a pat on the back for that or something? This does nothing to bolster your argument, and only serves to prove that you're impulsive and lack self control.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 02:00 AM
7

Agreed. "Jack-rolling" is a well-known past time for the very very very fucked up individuals of South Africa. THAT is a culture that accepts and promotes rape.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:50 AM
8

Care to expand on that?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 01:49 AM
7

This is one of those really extreme, unquestioned, dogmatic beliefs held by Feminists that is never questioned because, like FRS says, it: There is a reason that the term "rape culture" means nothing to the vast majority of Americans and that the term is scarcely ever uttered outside the rarefied halls of Women's Studies classes, or the cubicles of angry feminist bloggers: it holds reality up to a fun house mirror. Nobody knows about "rape culture," which is why it hasn't been squashed yet. It's…
/r/MensRights29/12/10 12:21 AM
2

Spouted from the mouth of a dead psychotic. That's all you really need.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 06:11 AM
7

This is going to make Thanksgiving and/or Easter pretty awkward with said uncle. You basically called him a dumb sack of shit.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 06:10 AM
1

Your mentality is like that XKCD comic where people swear they can figure out the society system when in fact social interactions are far more complex and impossible to put into a specific, rigid model. However, law is a very specific, rigid model which will grind up people or events that don't fit juuust right into the mold of the desired outcome. This is to say, the innocent get ground up with the guilty all the time. On the topic of your itemized list, what you're suggesting, when directed at…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 05:36 AM
1

It may be the engineer in me that has trained me to think that way, but testing for the worst case scenario is generally how I prefer to approach any problem. We do this by running through thought experiments or simulations so that we don't lose anything, and so that we can plan for eventualities that may crop up as a result of the choices we're making. You're basically describing the process of "planning ahead," and if you are against "planning ahead," then I don't know what to tell you. edit: …
/r/MensRights28/12/10 05:08 AM
2

That doesn't matter at all. Let's just say that the woman is indeed a saint and she marries the man and they die of old age together, locked in a loving embrace. That's not the point at all. The point is that the woman has all the power to destroy the man at any point, legally, without recourse. No person should be allowed that right (and this is critical, because it is the legal right of a woman to be entitled to all of these things) under any circumstances. Men are not allowed the right to bea…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:55 AM
2

This does nothing to refute the fact that the woman, in this hypothetical situation, holds the power to completely destroy a man at her leisure. She deceived (lied) to a man to force him into a corner and ruin him for the rest of his life. The use of a condom does not negate the fact that in this instance, the woman is a liar and a deceitful person who abused the law to get her way. This should not be an option available to any human being in the union.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 02:35 AM
2

My money's on troll. They're neck and neck! Down to the wire! She's pushing ahead! Going the distance! Going for speed! And it's troll by a nose!!!!
/r/MensRights28/12/10 01:27 AM
0

Please believe I read the whole thing. I can sympathize with your sentiment about being taught things that weren't right or being shown that XYZ is demeaning or disrespectful. As I was reading, however, the thing that bugged me the most was the fact that it is much easier to change your own personal outlook on life than it is to change laws. Your own feelings, personality, and learning are under your control, and the fact that you/this hypothetical young lady realize that there exists a problem …
/r/MensRights28/12/10 12:00 AM
2

I wish you the best of luck, with all the sincerity my blackened, calloused heart can muster...
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:40 PM
1

Saved. Thanks for the history lesson. Do you know specific names of legislation? "1920 Suffrage Act" or something along those lines?
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:39 PM
1

I have often thought about this and have heard about this, but haven't actually done any research on the number of women-only grants/scholarships in existence today. If you have already done the research, I'd really appreciate your links. If not, I'm already looking around, and will probably post a compiled list here at a later date.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:35 PM
2

Stupid as in untrue or stupid as in "I can't believe these are fucking true! How stupid!" stupid?
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:15 AM
3

It's as purposeful as convincing the virus of ebola that what it's doing is "wrong". That's going into the quote-pedia. Lol
/r/MensRights27/12/10 11:11 AM
1

Troll troll troll troll trolls in the butt. I watched the MTV show once that was a spinoff of a Japanese game show called "Silent Library." The contestants had to do all manner of weird things and try to keep quiet (no laughing, farting, sneezing, barfing, etc.) while they completed their tasks. One of the tasks was eating cottage cheese out of a troll's (the little rainbow haired naked dolls) hair. I almost vomitted just watching that.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 07:19 AM
3

Zykos touched on the mutual repression of the masses (by a wealthy elite) too, and it's absolutely true. Men AND women were both denied the right to vote or own land until very recently, and it's not something exclusively available to feminists to claim as their suffering on the road to suffrage. You're absolutely right.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 06:32 AM
3

Thanks for the links, I'll add them to my growing archive.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 04:45 AM
23

This is so far beyond what I wrote... This also introduces a number of factors I hadn't even considered. Thank you very much. Would you accept being in an 1700's-style marriage, where your husband owned everything, and had the legal right to beat you, simply because he was a "nice guy and wouldn't do that"? That is precisely what men are being asked, no, expected, to accept. Motherfucking WISDOM up in this bitch holy god. This is IT.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 04:41 AM
5

Thanks for the critique. I wouldn't have even thought to question my usage of the word "oppression" without this, and even as the word escapes my lips it sounds so contrived and overused. What would you call the institutionalized ... XYZ that I perceive men to be subject to in this current era?
/r/MensRights27/12/10 04:15 AM
4

I uhh.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 04:13 AM
5

The reason why men are 'forced to take responsibility' is because historically a man could knock women up and take none at all. And that has what relevance in today's world? A world where a woman can sue a man, and turn him into a wanted criminal for hundreds/thousands of dollars every month for twenty years. Women have the ability to abandon a baby. Men do not have the ability to abandon a baby. Effectively, women are given a club with which to clobber men with the help of the government. This …
/r/MensRights27/12/10 02:51 AM
5

I can't tell if you're missing the point or if you're knocking out the specious argument of tax burdens. The point is that women have the ability to walk away from an unwanted baby at any time, with absolutely no repercussions. Men do not have this ability, thus it is unfair. Women are protected, men are pariahs. That is the point.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 02:44 AM
8

VERY interesting reading. I am definitely one of the 20% of men who has been disincentivized to marry. It's far too high risk, even if the reward is as great as my father made it out to be. I never thought of it that way. 100 women competing for 80 men. Very interesting.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 02:04 AM
10

Nice cop out. I'm surprised you didn't refer me to derailing for dummies. Typical weak-minded, opinionated, undereducated, loutish moron. Go play with your like-minded friends so you can feel good about your mal-formed opinions. You are an intellectual midget.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:55 AM
15

So not only have you personally insulted me 3 times, you refuse to provide any sources for what you're talking about. Uh huh. Par for the course.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:46 AM
13

Can you give me ANYTHING at all? I don't even have search terms to pop into google for a relevant search. Give me an article or a study or something.
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:19 AM
15

There is still a pay gap, Due in large part to women's life choices/not working overtime/occupational choices, etc. "We don't need a law, Caplan said. Any company that discriminates by sex or anything other than work ability will have higher costs. "I hope my competitors discriminate. I want my competitors to discriminate because then they will go out of business," he said." source "Despite laws to prevent wage discrimination in the workplace, the median weekly earnings for full-time female work…
/r/MensRights27/12/10 01:07 AM
13

So do you have anything to add, or is your logical, fact-based argument just "bullshit?"
/r/MensRights27/12/10 12:47 AM
7

100% of these "derailments" are legitimate questions of credibility. This is not akin to claiming logical fallacies, as they have been mathematically and systematically proven to be legitimate since ancient times. These "derailments" are the terminal end to every single feminist argument for which they cannot find adequate proof to prove their point. Apply each of these questions to a doctoral thesis, and they are suddenly par-for-the-course/indispensable. This only shows how weak minded the ave…
/r/MensRights26/12/10 01:32 AM
7

"Why don't these men just go back to school and re-tool themselves?" When my mom wanted to do this, she was fully supported financially by my dad. If a man wanted to go back to school, who pays for his shit? The amount of simple misinterpretations of data in this piece of shit circle jerk lecture are astounding. I thought the only people who paid to have shit shoved in their faces were fetishists? The icing on the cake was the young girl's observations of the classroom where she said "all the gi…
/r/MensRights25/12/10 11:33 AM
3

"... and they're starting to dominate in lots of professions: Doctors, lawyers, bankers, accountants..." Professions that don't build things or put their lives on the line (doctors, maybe).
/r/MensRights25/12/10 11:17 AM
-4

Grow some balls and take ownership of what you're saying. "Does anybody else" is seeking approval from the crowd while distancing yourself from the statement you're making. Say it plainly and clearly. Don't be a half-assed activist.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 04:36 AM
2

I agree with you, but I see a fatal flaw that can still be abused by child-support-paycheck seeking women. The "abortion window" will be effectively obfuscated by the woman until its expiration. This is no problem for men who have honest significant others, but for the dishonest women, it's just another hump to get past before they can start raking in their 50%. The only 100% guaranteed "honest on all sides" way of dealing with this issue, in my opinion, is to have a pre-conception waiver or con…
/r/MensRights23/12/10 11:42 PM
2

If only women could just have a "financial abortion" rather than a real one. A woman can do whatever they want with their body. That is their right that nobody can take away from them. However, if they do decide to carry the baby to full term against the wishes of the father, it should not affect the father in any way unless he actively agrees to support the child. The way the system works now favors dishonest women. It will ensure that a dishonest, paternity-fraud child-support check seeking wo…
/r/MensRights23/12/10 11:38 PM
0

The intelligence of the person being taken advantage of has no bearing on the morality of the act taking place. If a woman is mentally retarded, does that justify raping her?
/r/MensRights23/12/10 11:37 AM
2

Thirded - Why is this men's rights? Don't be a bitch ass motherfucker and talk out the side of your neck. State your idea clearly and completely, and let it be judged, otherwise you're just a shill who relies on mindless followers who latch on to half truths and "suggested implications" to get your shit across. Get this shit out of this reddit. This has nothing to do with men's rights and everything to do with protecting the elderly. A young man can probably do this to an old woman. This is not …
/r/MensRights23/12/10 07:15 AM
1

Corollary: If men stop dating gold-diggers and start dating decent women, the amount of decent women will increase as the gold-digger ethos loses its viability. This is a ridiculous statement. Gold diggers disguise themselves as decent women. Their entire modus operandi relies on being able to sneak in under the radar, and take a man for half of what he's worth during divorce proceedings.
/r/MensRights23/12/10 02:09 AM
0

Did you or did you not claim in your original post that, through use of sarcasm, the existence and marketing of Cialis and Viagra are proof of the existence of male empowerment?
/r/MensRights23/12/10 02:03 AM
1

We can tell how much male sexuality is demonized by the nonstop viagra/cialis ads on prime time tv. They really have it out for men who want to have sex! This was written with a tone of sarcasm. The intended meaning of this statement was to prove: 1) Due to the fact that viagra and cialis are marketed toward men relentlessly, clearly, men must be on equal footing wit women when it comes to power in the realm of sexual interaction (which is not the case, as women can cry rape, or trap men with al…
/r/MensRights23/12/10 12:51 AM
2

I'm not going to sink to the level of feminists in order to get my point across. http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/ken-buck-the-pro-rape-lobby/ In this deliciously hate-filled blog (which I suspect is written mostly by women under male pseudonyms) loves to use the term "rape lobby" or "Pro-rape lobby" to polarize the issue into an us-vs-them type of match-up. This is what is called a false dichotomy. Famously used by the Bush administration to garner support for virtually everythin…
/r/MensRights22/12/10 11:55 PM
2

We can tell how much male sexuality is demonized by the nonstop viagra/cialis ads on prime time tv. They really have it out for men who want to have sex! This is not a cogent thought. Your assertion is not capable of being derived from the premises you posited (viagra/cialis = male empowerment is anything but true, as it has either neutral or false value given the state of the court/policing system with regard to how it handles "sex crimes"). It actually serves as proof for the OP's claim that m…
/r/MensRights22/12/10 11:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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