TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

fractal_shark Archive

View 0 posts and 295 comments by fractal_shark 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)
9

Remember the first rule of Fight Club... That's a fine rule if you're an underground fight club of a few dozen people, but that's not the case for /r/TheRedPill. There are over 50 thousand subscribers just to this subreddit. Include the nearly 100 thousand anti-feminists at /r/mensrights and that's a lot of people. And that's just on reddit. TRP isn't some impotent little fight club that has to hide in basements. There's no need to hide and try to keep the rest of the world from finding out abou…
/r/TheRedPill29/05/14 01:50 AM
-12

my belief that we ought to have mandatory classes to teach women how to argue without appealing to anecdote. How many classes? Once a week? One semester, or multiple? What class or subject do you cut to make room for it? What's included in the curriculum? What ages do students take these classes? Will there be standardized tests a la No Child Left Behind to make sure they are taken seriously?
/r/TheRedPill28/05/14 11:00 PM
1

I'm not making a deductive argument. Note especially my use of the phrase "it would seem". But the lack of openly gay players does point towards something, especially in the presence of larger societal homophobia. Since multiple players have come out as gay after retiring, it's clear that being gay doesn't mean one is less capable at football.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 07:01 PM
1

r/MensRights addresses things that only affect some men all the time. It's not like the posts about women being favored in divorce court, etc. are about issues that affect gay men. Why is an issue about gay men not a men's issue, but an issue about straight men a men's issue?
/r/MensRights11/05/14 05:19 PM
3

God forbid we see things based on people's merits and not their skin color, gender, or sexual preference. Considering that he's the first openly gay NFL player, it would seem that the NFL has not been doing a good job judging things based on merit and not sexuality. Otherwise, there'd be more openly gay NFL players.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 05:08 PM
2

The problem with just downvoting things is that they still clog up the /new stream and often, they don't get downvoted. There's been a lot of highly upvoted screenshots of facebook conversations.
/r/MensRights11/05/14 12:43 AM
1

Bro, you're on a subreddit based around rules for dating/sex and Matrix references. I don't think you're one to talk.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/14 12:19 PM
-5

But their probability of being raped is still like 0.000000000001% Yes. Women not "engaging in obviously dangerous behaviors" have a 1 in a 100 trillion chance of being raped. This is why literally none of them have ever been raped, seeing as how there's only ever been tens of billions of humans.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/14 03:00 AM
0

I'm sorry you're dumb :(
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:49 AM
-9

It's easier to downvote than to admit being wrong :-)
/r/MensRights25/10/13 11:31 AM
-150

Yes. Because high-paying jobs like doctor, lawyer, CEO, programmer, etc. are so dangerous.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 01:05 AM
0

What, do you need me to link you to a German dictionary to believe me on what Mensch means? You could just look it up yourself.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:24 AM
-1

Pointing out the linked post gets major details in its history wrong is a damning criticism. An article which tries to establish a repressed history as true doesn't succeed if its history is itself false. Your link has no credibility. Sorry.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:14 AM
1

But the world’s first men’s rights organization was founded as an international one, founded in 1926 in Vienna, Liga Für Menschenrechte (League for Men’s Rights). I stopped reading at this point. I don't know who wrote this, but they don't speak German very well. Mensch doesn't mean man. It means human. The League for Human Rights is a real organization (or rather, group of organizations) that exists to this day. Here's the website for the Austrian chapter. Googling for "Sigurd Höberth" (the all…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 03:32 AM
0

If what a movement is is determined by the impact that movement has on the world, then doesn't that mean the men's rights movement is nothing? You know, because you are so utterly ineffectual at activism?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 02:41 AM
-5

If you look at the old Sublime song "Date Rape", The song that ends with the punchline of a man getting raped in prison? Is this really what we want to base our understandings of rape on?
/r/MensRights14/10/13 02:58 AM
-2

Why did they hear those phrases and from where did these phrases come from? I think we can all agree that feminism can be thanked for this. Actually, I am basing my opinion on what I've seen MRA groups do. Take, for example, Men's Rights Edmonton's response to the Don't be that Guy campaign. They didn't respond by advocating for male rape victims. Instead, they responded by attacking women for being dishonest and malicious. GWW responded with a video titled "don’t be that lying feminist". Or con…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 01:24 PM
-2

Actually, I am basing my opinion on what I've seen MRA groups do. Take, for example, Men's Rights Edmonton's response to the Don't be that Guy campaign. They didn't respond by advocating for male rape victims. Instead, they responded by attacking women for being dishonest and malicious. GWW responded with a video titled "don’t be that lying feminist". Or consider the time some people from Men's Rights Edmonton showed up to a Slutwalk rally to harass women. Or consider the time A Voice for Men fa…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 12:30 PM
-11

Regardless of whether you feel your hate is justified, the fact is that MRAs are most well known for hating on feminists, not for advocating for men. This sort of thing makes it pretty clear that MRAs have an image problem.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 03:38 AM
-9

God, it's almost like MRAs are known for hating feminists, and not known for rallying for cancer research and victims of sexual assault! Maybe if MRAs spent less time hating feminists, people wouldn't get this impression of them!
/r/MensRights10/10/13 02:25 AM
1

That's a lot of words that weren't in your original post. You keep adding to it when criticized. Why don't you just admit that your argument, as first written, was incoherent?
/r/MensRights07/10/13 12:19 AM
1

No, they are not the same argument. But no one has claimed that, so I don't know why you mention this obvious fact. What is true is that my argument had the same structure as your argument. Here, let me make it more obvious for you, since you seem to be having difficulty with this simple point: There are a nonzero number of people with property A who also have property B. Everyone knows this. Therefore, anyone with property A must prove they don't have property B. Both our arguments have this st…
/r/MensRights06/10/13 10:01 PM
1

Again, no they weren't. Um... actually, the structure of the arguments were identical, as I just copied your argument word for word and then replaced "women in tech" with "men" and "got job because of being afraid of being called sexist" with "being a pedophile". Your argument was just that there's at least one woman in tech who got a job because they're a woman and the company didn't want to look sexist. Therefore, women have to "prove themselves" as not incompetent. Nowhere did you mention aff…
/r/MensRights06/10/13 03:03 PM
3

Let's be honest. There are a nonzero number of men who are pedophiles. Everyone knows this. So what does that mean? That means every man has to first prove himself that he's not a pedophile.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 12:52 AM
2

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to whine about. Your choice to take that speech as an attack on homosexuality shows that pretty clearly. The MRM, where thinking homophobia is a bad thing is "scraping the bottom of the barrel". This might be one reason people outside the pathetically small number who show up to MRM rallies don't take you seriously.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:13 AM
-1

*shrug* I'm sorry your movement is so shitty and impotent.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:51 PM
-1

No. While I certainly am all for men and think there are aspects of modern western society which harm men, I don't think the MRM is a productive place to work on these issues, for several reasons. The MRM has a terrible track record with other axes of oppression. Put simply, the MRM isn't a men's rights movement, but rather a straight, cisgender, white men's rights movement. Related to the first reason, the MRM doesn't understand intersectionality. The MRM is caught up in a libertarian ideology.…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:54 PM
0

Of course.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:50 AM
0

Something about this thread makes it hard to give the benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:22 AM
1

Wow, way to reduce the queer struggle to being entirely about fulfilling our sexual needs. As a queer man: fuck you.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:04 AM
2

I was advising him on how to not be a shitty excuse for a human being. That seems more important to me than being "successful with women". Anyway, you really should abide by my point number 4 above.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:21 PM
5

Because liking rough sex does seem to indicate that you are not just attracted to the nice sensitive guys who value women as people that most women claim to be attracted too. Christ but you're an unlikeable douche.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:19 PM
3

What's BS about it? Saying the OP should exercise more? Saying he shouldn't think of masturbation as a poor substitute for sex? Saying he should care about the people in his life for who they are as individuals, not for belonging to group comprising about half of all humans? Saying that he should be able to interact with women without thinking about how much he wants to fuck them?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:14 PM
2

I'll leave you with this thought: you started by vehemently protesting that women aren't witches, bitches (liches?), and ended with this: "My partner... says... This dumbass doesn't know what he's talking about." Do you feel like you've successfully defended your gender as compassionate, loving, caring, understand, anything? I don't think anything I do reflects on women due to the simple fact that I am not a woman. I think you do, because you set out to "win" rather than help. I did spend one po…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 08:36 PM
1

*sigh* I should have known that giving you earnest advice would be a waste of my time. That's a damned shame. I don't know what you mean by "don't be a misogynist". Please clarify. You should read what women say about their experiences with misogyny then. That would be informative. Now remember, when you do this, to keep an open mind and don't just read everything with the intent of refuting the experiences of everyone who disagrees with you. Firstly, I don't care about myself. No, you quite cle…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 08:31 PM
2

I'm not qualified to extrapolate the nuanced arguments behind overused buzzwords like "creepy", "rapey", "misogynist" etc. I'd be very interested to see what you consider an honest summary of the negative responses made on my post(s). Preferably one that doesn't contain the aforementioned fourth-wall-breaking words. I don't think you know what it means to break the fourth wall. Anyway, your post was Rapey: because you were saying you don't think you should respect consent; Misogynistic: because …
/r/MensRights29/09/13 08:11 PM
2

A tree is a video game, in the sense that both are systems of input-output. You input water to a tree and it outputs fruit. This analogy is fun and useful! :D
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:05 PM
2

Ask yourself whether the man in your life is really like this or if you've pinned these "positive" qualities to him because you like him and you harbor heavy biases. I guess "sweet" is vague to the point of meaningless, but caring, sensitive, and thoughtful fit him. But because I'm asking how best to get emotional intimacy and - yes - sex Here's some free advice (I say "woman" a lot because you appear to be a straight man, but really the advice holds for people of all genders and orientations): …
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:03 PM
3

I didn't ask for advice about relating to women purposely. I wanted to learn how to succeed with women, God, I wonder why women would react poorly to you treating them like some kind of video game. Your intelligence really does speak for itself...
/r/MensRights29/09/13 06:46 PM
0

Okay, let's dissect this comment as well. So from what I can gather from all the well-constructed criticisms (i.e. creepy! rapist! disgusting!) is a few things: That wasn't the extend of the criticisms. Don't lie. I posted wrong. I said stuff that hurt people's feelings in a sub where that's considered a crime against humanity. This is clear from the fact that my post was deleted very quickly That's also a misrepresentation of what was said. Insulting people you are asking for advice is rude and…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 06:41 PM
2

[excuses---with yet more negative views of women!---for your prior comments] Yeah, sure you care about improving yourself.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 06:24 PM
3

It's rambly, poorly-written, and cringey. What's eloquent about it? The long run-on sentences? The pathetic alternating from insulting women to calling them beautiful? The crass appeal to a misunderstanding of evolution?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:50 PM
6

Let's go through your post and look at why people would react negatively to it. As I am still an organism shaped by evolutionary pressures (i.e. the pressure to continue my line), Opening up by saying that you are in thrall to an evolutionarily-enforced desire to procreate is creepy and raises all kinds of red flags. It removes your agency from the situation. You don't take responsibility for the aspects of your personality/behaviors that make you unsuccessful at getting women to like you. Rathe…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:47 PM
1

I found that quite eloquent. I'm sorry you have such low standards for eloquence.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 03:27 PM
1

The child wouldn't be adopted in the case in question. They were born of one of the fathers and a surrogate.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 03:44 AM
1

Also, while you are answering questions, why do you feel that gay and bisexual men cannot make a good pair of parents? After all, at most one of them would be the biological father to any child, so if it's bio-dads that are important, then the other partner is just superfluous. Not to mention the whole "children need a father and a mother" thing you are pushing is also incredibly excluding of gay and bisexual men.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:05 AM
2

So you think that if a man adopted a child he wouldn't be a good parent?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 07:53 PM
1

So why include the word "biological"?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 01:59 PM
1

What’s Missing When Dad’s Missing?: Statistics on the importance of having a biological dad in the home Is the implication that men are useless unless they are biologically related to the child?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 12:25 PM
-2

If you look at only the STEM fields of those reported (i.e. Biology, Engineering, Health Sciences, Mathematics/Computer Science, and Physical Sciences), you'll note that women make up less than a third of PhDs in 3 of those 5 fields. In one the numbers are about equal and in the last women vastly outnumber men. It is simple fact that women are underrepresented in STEM fields. As for why media focuses on STEM fields versus other fields, that is clearly because STEM is seen to be more valuable tha…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:07 PM
1

You should know that as a feminist, I hate all men. Except you, of course <3
/r/MensRights19/08/13 09:29 PM
0

MRAs do not want to rollback women's rights. O RLY?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 07:03 PM
1

I'm not going to do your homework for you. I will link you to a wikipedia page, but that's it.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:30 PM
2

Two really basic points: Patriarchy and harmful gender roles hurt both men and women. Patriarchy is something we all contribute to and reproduce. It isn't the result of just men.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:10 PM
3

You have to understand, abortion was illegal in the US until about 40 years ago. The median age in the US is about 37 (source). That is, nearly half of all Americans were born when abortion was illegal. And it's not like once the Supreme Court legalized abortion that everyone magically supported women having a right to reproductive choice. A very common, mainstream even, belief is that women shouldn't be allowed to exercise control over their own bodies. It's not like everywhere but Texas is a u…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:08 PM
2

Yes, yes it would. Women can oppress women too. It's only you who thinks patriarchy must come only from men.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:58 PM
-7

Oh, it wasn't trolling, it was just pointing out that the OP is wrong and blatantly wrong.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:51 AM
-5

Honestly? A little bit.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:38 AM
-7

A US state effectively outlawing abortion. Oh wait, that seems to show that oppression of women does exist. Damnation, I thought I'd found something.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:35 AM
0

Reddit doesn't allow spaces in usernames and underscores are often used to denote spaces... I mean, I could refer to myself as Fractal Shark if that helps you not be confused (not that I think it will). Not to mention if having an underscore in one's reddit username is all it takes to be part of the spermjack_attack/fractal_shark hive mind, then we count among our ranks 5 of the top 20 redditors by comment karma. My name is Legion for we are many and all that. Anyway, your delusions that there c…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:31 AM
0

It's really easy to hate GWW. After all, she's petty, mean, and stupid. But you spend enough time reading her repetitive nonsense and it turns into pity. She got popular by making videos where she spouts uninformed opinions about feminism, women, and society. This subsequently led to her becoming popular amongst people who like uninformed opinions about feminism and women. But now she's trapped in those views, because if she ever realized that she's wrong, her fans would turn on her. She's creat…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:20 AM
0

Is this why you get upset when Spermjack Attack quotes things you said months ago? Because it was something you said more than 7 hours ago? Or are you just pretending 7 hours is a long period of time to try to cover up your stupidity and anti-intellectualism?
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:12 AM
0

If a person needs to read 518 pages 518 pages isn't very much. On my tablet, I currently have 5112 pages worth of mathematics texts (and that's just the books---I didn't want to go through dozens of papers to sum of their lengths). Technology is magic! And this is just reading material on one subfield (set theory) of mathematics. And it certainly doesn't exhaust the field. There is a lot of work to understand a body of intellectual thought. That's what happens when very smart people spend decade…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:45 PM
0

Well, I guess she faces the problem that if she were to educate herself, she'd realize just how stupid all her current arguments are. But since her mindless fans like her for those vapid arguments, stopping using them would lessen their view of her. If she were to realize how wrong she is and argue in the opposite direction, these MRAs would hate her. So much misogygy would result. She has to choose between cleaving to ignorance or have her fans hate her (and we all know how hatred for a woman m…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:28 PM
-4

You're talking to someone who cannot distinguish between "women are oppressed" and "men are to blame for women being oppressed". Do you really think she can distinguish between honesty and dishonesty? I don't know if you've noticed this, but despite the large number of people who like to fawn over her videos, she isn't very smart. She constantly makes glaring intellectual mistakes and refuses to put forth effort to educate herself or gain a basic understanding of anything she is talking about. I…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 06:49 PM
3

Quickest way to lose your credibility is to block all discussion/critique. You're right! That's why you aren't allowed to post in r/MensRights about it and criticize her---oh wait... (Also, scroll up and click the "other discussions" tab. This video is being discussed/critiqued all over reddit.)
/r/MensRights03/08/13 06:37 PM
5

Their scholarship hasn't influenced a single law, policy, or dollar. I'll just do this for Kimberlé Crenshaw. It's your homework to read up on the contributions of the other listed feminists. Crenshaw has published numerous works including Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment. She was also the coeditor of Critical Race Theory: Key Documents That Shaped the Movement and her works have appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the National Black Law Journal, …
/r/MensRights13/07/13 09:05 PM
-1

How can I hold all this obtuse cuntery! Wow such bridge building
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:09 PM
0

Maybe feminists should consider not creating publicly funded campaigns targeted at men that closely resemble those targeted at Jews and Black people in history. This is rich coming from someone who likes to defend slavery.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 03:28 AM
3

I don't think you read all of those wikipedia pages in 5 minutes.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:09 AM
2

I assume that if a white slaveowner wanted to "breed" slaves, he or she would be forcing both a male and a female slave to have sex with each other. Ah! So you didn't bother to read anything I linked! Thanks for that admission. That was explicitly mentioned as something that happened on those wikipedia pages and in one of the bits I quoted. Conveniently bolded. Let me repeat that one sentence so you can read it, since you clearly missed it the first time: there were masters who, without any rega…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:02 AM
0

being treated like your only value is your utility to others Oh, well if you rephrase what you said to that, then I don't have to disprove it. As demonstrated by what I quoted from wikipedia in my other comments, there have been women who were treated like their only value was their utility to others. In this rephrasing, it is your claim that women aren't treated this way that is false. This new interpretation of what you said doesn't make your overall argument sound.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:56 AM
3

Are you claiming the only way to rape a person is via procreative sex? The bits I quoted talked about how black women slaves were raped for procreative reasons. So if you are claiming that black men were treated like chattel in the same way black women were, i.e. by being raped for procreative reasons, then non-procreative rape---while still a horrible thing to do---is not relevant.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:54 AM
0

I never claimed that all slave classes occupied a privileged position. Okay then. Scratch the word "privileged" from my earlier argument. It wasn't an essential component of what I was saying. The rest of my argument holds: you made a universal statement, had it disproven, and are now trying to distract people so they don't notice the examples you cite are irrelevant. (∃x) φ(x) is not equivalent to (∀x) φ(x).
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:48 AM
2

No doubt black men were raped as well. And this may blow your mind, but they likely were raped by white women too. So you are claiming that in the American South circa the 19th century, white women would birth mixed-race children and that this was common?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:42 AM
2

And you didn't even address other slave groups that were effectively "free" yet still functioned as a slave class--such as the Janissaries or the Mamaluks. What you said upthread was Do you know what all slave classes share in common? They have to earn their positive social identity through work. You made what is called a universal statement: you claimed every slave class has to earn this social identity through work. In order to demonstrate that your claim is false, it is sufficient to demonstr…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:40 AM
-1

What if we had a system where women were dominating over men? Would such a system, which is something commonly alleged as an end-goal of feminism by anti-feminists, be wrong?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:34 AM
3

So you're saying all the rape that went on had nothing to do with them being women? The systematic rape and breeding had nothing to do with their status of women? This treatment of them as chattel was completely unrelated to them being women? Really? Since it only has to do with them being black, then surely it's also the case that other black people were treated in the same way? Did white slaveowners rape male slaves in some disgusting attempt to increase their property ownings?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:31 AM
4

And what about the slaves who were owned by the state? Being owned by an institution of people is being owned by people. Dumbass.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:28 AM
-1

In certain cultures women used to be treated as chattel No they weren't. I'll just quote a bit from a relevant wikipedia page: Because of the power relationships of the institution, slave women in the United States were at high risk for rape and sexual abuse. Many slaves fought back against sexual attacks, and some died resisting. Others carried psychological and physical scars from the attacks. Sexual abuse of slaves was partially rooted in a patriarchal Southern culture which treated black wom…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 02:22 AM
-1

Reddit has this really cool feature which allows you to edit a post after you've already submitted it. If you look right below your post, you'll see a few options. If you click the one labeled "edit", it will let you edit your post, even though it's already been submitted!
/r/MensRights05/07/13 01:54 AM
3

but the laws aren't genderneutral despite this, you still need a penis to be labeled a rapist... I guess that all these women (all of them) must have penises.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 05:37 PM
8

Oh, I don't play video games online because I don't like interacting with immature manchildren. Youtube videos are in the same boat. You should be glad I'm deigning to speak to you. Anyway, good job on showing that you and people like you are the sorts of terrible people who think comments about rape are acceptable.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 02:34 AM
5

Bro, let me come clean with you. I actually am a man. I cannot think of a single time I have ever faced a rape threat over the internet.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 02:18 AM
7

TIL that rape threats are not hostile.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 02:05 AM
10

Thank you for admitting that many websites are hostile towards women.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:57 AM
12

Why wouldn't it be. It is one of the top 5 online social hotspots, and, moreover, a male centric one. It's so hard being a man on the internet. Every website I go to, people assume I'm a woman by default. If they find out I'm a man, they say things like "dick pics or GTFO" and send me rape threats. It's really tough.
/r/MensRights29/06/13 01:44 AM
1

Assume towards a contradiction that it is not possible to prove a negative (to be clear, I'm here using "negative" to mean a statement of the form ¬φ). In classical logic, every statement is logically equivalent to a negative: φ is equivalent to ¬¬φ. So if it is impossible to prove a negative, then it is impossible to prove anything. But clearly that is absurd: it is very possible to prove things. Contradiction. Hence, it must be possible to prove a negative.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 03:00 PM
12

Im being presented with follower feminists who are so low in the movement, God, I really love this idea that feminism is this hierarchical thing. You get hired on at an entry-level feminism position, work hard for many years writing feminist blogs and if you are a hard-working feminist bee, then one day you might be promoted to regional director of feminism! Then you get to legislate misandry and edit "stastical [sic] data", but you have to do it secretly, so the lower-level feminists don't know…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 09:37 PM
1

Your username is at least halfways apt. Like sperm, you're kind of slimy and bitter and difficult to swallow without gagging, and you give me a rash when I come into extended contact with you. I don't know what sperm you've been trying to swallow, but something somewhere is wrong about it. I'll concede the sperm is typically slimy, but it's certainly not universally bitter and "difficult to swallow without gagging" seems to have at least as much to do with as you as it does the sperm. The point …
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:57 PM
1

Even today, being caught walking in a children's park while male is enough to get police attention. Well no, that's not true. An 8 year old boy walking in a children's park probably won't attract police. Unless you're saying children can't be male, which would just be weird.
/r/TheRedPill11/06/13 02:33 PM
2

I don't know you, so it's hard for me to have a strong opinion, but I'm sure that if I met you, I would hate you. You seem pretty stupid and like to make up stories about me.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:57 AM
2

I'm not grapeban. I wasn't looking to prove their claims. I was just mocking the idea that anyone actually cares about anything the MRM has ever done (which isn't much, outside of harass some women and feminists).
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:43 AM
-1

The MRM is very poor on social justice Any proof of this? I'd prefer something peer reviewed if possible. As if any one who writes peer-reviewed papers would spend time writing about something so ultimately inconsequential as the MRM...
/r/MensRights09/06/13 01:26 AM
-2

I'd say getting blown up sucks a lot more than having to move. Look again at the Clinton quote: Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Civilian casualties in war are not exclusive to men, idiot.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 09:52 PM
-8

What's wrong with Christina Hoff Summers? She's a libertarian. 'Nuff said. Also, you cannot differentiate between patriarchy and men. Feminists can and do. You cannot condemn feminists when the problem here is your inability to understand even a minor measure of subtlety.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:42 PM
-4

It says that I don't want to waste my time arguing with a stupid misogynist who doesn't even have the decency to try to hide it.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:41 PM
-3

The sheer amount of crap we've all been forced to put up with regarding Fifty Shades of Grey, the fucking Kardashians, ex Disney starlets going on drug fueled shoplifting sprees, and Angelina Jolie's double masectomy show that the US doesn't even match this last point. Wow but you're a misogynist.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:37 PM
-6

Oh my god. You are so fucking stupid. What is this I don't even. Let me try the same argument technique: And yes, I think the entire concept of the Holocaust is either a projection of some Jews' inability to reconcile that they have a desire to be dominated by nazis; or a paired symptom of EJB (Extreme Jewish Brain), described by researchers as the opposite end of the spectrum to ENB (Extreme Nazi Brain). ENB results in highly systemizing brains with truncated social cognition--autism spectrum d…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:35 PM
-5

Five influential feminists. Two influential feminists and three not-so-influential feminists. And none of them have been influential for several decades. Is the best you can do really to criticize feminism circa 1980? Good job, you managed to do something feminists did 20--30 years ago.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:20 PM
-5

Yo. Do you even google? Edit: x2 combo bonus definition!
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:08 PM
-5

Wow. You cited five whole feminists, some of them out of context, and none of the quotes made in the last 20 years. That clearly shows that all feminists hate men.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 08:01 PM
0

Patriarchy theory is the core of established feminism Patriarchy theory isn't a real thing. Seriously, look at the results for a google search on "patriarchy theory". You don't see links to well-cited feminist literature in this search. Instead you see things like a TyphonBlue video and an AVFM wiki page. The fifth result for me was a reddit post from a couple months ago criticizing the MRA usage of "patriarchy theory". It points out, as is easily seen, that the term is something invented by MRA…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:58 PM
1

feminism has core beliefs. By what means does one determine the core beliefs of feminism? It seems to me that this is not a simple problem. If it were simple, then we would expect to see broader agreement on what these core beliefs are. However, we don't see that, suggesting that getting at the core beliefs of a collection of thoughts and movement as broad and diverse as feminism is not something you should just gloss over. Follow up point: people who have shown they don't understand feminist be…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:52 PM
0

Linking to a bunch of shitty youtube videos and blog posts isn't "broadly cited"... Dumbass.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:43 PM
0

Citing an accomplished medical researcher on the state of medical research is an SRS thing now? Is Ioannidis a crypto-SRSter?
/r/MensRights30/05/13 01:41 PM
-3

The first step is not to look at the results and ask, "what biases inform these results"? The paper I linked you to (I don't expect you to do more than read the abstract and scan it, but you really ought to at least look at it for more than a few seconds) started by looking at results. Specifically, it started with noticing the fact that these results were wrong and asking what caused the results? What flaw in reasoning---one might say bias---informed these (wrong) results? What is wrong about t…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 03:00 AM
-10

You're totally right. It's much better to judge all reality by feels. That isn't even remotely what I said. Please don't lie about what I said. You realize that the cultural narrative that MGM is just peachy and totally beneficial informs "research" that is just as biased as anything you might cite, right? I do realize that. That is in fact something I have brought up in the past when arguing that we oughtn't mutilate infants. I agree with Ioannidis's argument that misapplication of statistics l…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:13 AM
-13

So basically what you're saying is that "medically constructed" knowledge (that is, empiricism) is merely an extension of "feels". Relevant to this conversation is the established fact that the medical literature is stuffed full of published results that are wrong. As in the claims they are making are not true. See e.g. this widely cited paper by a researcher in medicine. This of course is not sufficient to establish that medical knowledge is just based on feelings (not that Spermjack Attack was…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 12:27 AM
0

Well your efforts and projects don't seem to be worth much, so you wouldn't have to value how you look very much to make it worth more.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:31 PM
0

I'm not saying that you are wrong to post the screenshots or that you oughtn't call out amr on "brigading" r/mensrights. I'm saying that doing it as much as you do makes you look paranoid.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 11:22 PM
-1

It's more that you seem to be linking to every amr post which links to r/mensrights. You don't see amr linking to everything on r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:44 PM
1

Bro, you need to stop linking to amr. It makes you look paranoid.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 04:27 AM
1

I am not entirely sure where you are getting these ideas? The deep misogynistic recesses of his bowels, I believe.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 03:48 AM
-5

No. No it is not. That would be a stupid thing to say.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 04:34 AM
1

the acknowledgement that there are two bodies Spermjack Attack argued that there are not two bodies in a meaningful sense. Again, you confuse people disagreeing with you with people being dishonest.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 06:07 AM
1

Your grasp of the current conversation is poor, which casts doubt upon how well you understood the previous conversation. You have confused me disagreeing with you and you taking a paragraph to argue your point with me making your point for you. You are making your own points. Edit: let me put this another way. Making an argument you disagree with is not the same as making an argument which undermines itself. Not every argument you disagree with is incoherent.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:31 AM
1

"I don't think it's fair" is not a rational argument - it's whining. It wasn't an argument. It was a statement of my view, followed by an argument for it. Do you understand that you just told the reader you think it's okay to be dishonest in a discussion if it works in your favor? I did not say that. What I said was that Spermjack Attack was trying to enforce limits on certain topics of discussion by explicitly arguing that they were irrelevant. Although you clearly disagree with their argument,…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:21 AM
1

I did remember the conversation. I remember that it covered a fair number of facets of abortion. I wanted to know which part you were referring to. Thank you for the response. In the case you mention, I don't think it is fair to say that Spermjack Attack was using terminology to limit the topic of conversation. They were trying to limit the topic of conversation, but they were very explicit about it and not doing so through the usage of jargon. They were just explaining that the argument for abo…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 05:03 AM
1

Could you be more specific with your criticism? What jargon was deployed? How did it "direct attention in the discussion away from part of the subject matter"? What part of the subject matter was it directing attention away from? Why is this part essential or important? How did this manipulate the reader?
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:37 AM
1

I've also seen her use the very thing I've described in that post - the use of terminology to try to shape the perception of a concept. That is a desirable trait of jargon. (To be clear, I'm using "jargon" in the meaning of technical terminology, in particular for an academic discipline. This differs from the more colloquial definition, tinged with negativity, of "obtuse or obscure language exclusive to a group". As an aside, this fits nicely with the theme of this thread: the understanding of "…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 03:40 AM
1

That is a terrible strategy. Arguing that X is bad and harmful and fighting to end it would be an ineffectual way to hold onto X. Are you suggesting that the entirety of feminism and feminists would fail to notice this obvious fact? That would be necessary for your scenario to be true.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 02:54 AM
0

Crosshook, heterosexuality and cisgenderism are not the same thing. Don't conflate them.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 02:55 PM
1

So you accept that one's parents may influence one into racist views, but you don't think society can... Okay... After you get too many people together, does it start being impossible to influence people? Where is the line drawn? Could it be that my parents and my fourth grade teacher taught me racist ideals? What about my parents and fourth grade teacher and grandparents? Parents and fourth grade teacher and grandparents and pastor and television shows? At what point does this become "society" …
/r/MensRights21/05/13 03:08 PM
1

They're relevant in the context of history, they are not relevant in the context of racial dynamics today. You say that like all those things happened far in the past.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:57 PM
1

Dude, you still need to work on your reading comprehension. This isn't very difficult. Spermjack_attack was claiming that the discussion shouldn't center around slavery. Stop attacking people for mentioning slavery when they are responding to the argument of the OP, who is the one who brought up slavery. She's claiming that somehow white men are guilty of racism even if they never engage in racist behavior. Well, the claim is that people who engage in racist behavior are guilty of racism. As rac…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:45 PM
1

Even if not all white people are elite, it still is important to note that the elite are overwhelmingly white. Feminists often do declare that all men are privileged. I don't think you understand male privilege. It isn't an individual thing. That is, male privilege does not mean that every individual man will be treated better by those around him. Rather, it's about what we see as default and what we value societally or culturally. For example, take the usage of the word "man" to mean "human" or…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:41 PM
2

That might be because engineering students are generally rather stupid.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:45 AM
-1

Dude, I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Spermjack_attack was saying that since slavery is not the only form of racism in the US, one oughtn't say "I didn't own slaves, ergo I am not racist". You then turn around and say that nearly verbatim, completely missing the point.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:41 AM
0

Look in the mirror. That's a racist. I'll fully admit that. Part of living in a racist society is that you pick up racist views. It would be absurd to think that I've managed to excise every racist thought I've ever picked up. Oh wait, you were saying I'm racist against white people. Lol.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:33 AM
1

It's not because the elite are white men that all white men are elite. I don't think all white men are elite, nor do very many feminists, so I don't see your point.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 12:28 AM
-3

How is any of this relevant? Slavery in the United States was not a case in which the slaves ruled.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 03:01 AM
-1

Did you just link me to your own video? Wow so convincing. Edit: It's funny because you think what happened in the Ottoman empire is relevant to slavery in America!
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:44 AM
2

You should read this.
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:37 AM
-1

Are you confusing me saying that most books/movies/tv shows don't contain a trope with me not recognizing the trope itself? To bring it back to your original point, are you saying that the people who have power in society are the people who don't even have the power to protect their own bodies? Are you really fucking saying that?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:31 AM
1

Most books and tv shows don't have people being "saved". With regard to video games, is this what you are talking about?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:24 AM
0

Most films don't have people being "saved"...
/r/MensRights20/05/13 02:18 AM
3

Well, yes. For example, in Star Wars Episode VI, Luke Skywalker (a white man) saves Han Solo (another white man).
/r/MensRights20/05/13 01:53 AM
5

So the far more powerful elite are... white men?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 12:36 AM
3

At best white men were/are house slaves to a far more powerful elite. Who make up this far more powerful elite?
/r/MensRights20/05/13 12:18 AM
1

I know. It's almost as if I replied to you to fuel your paranoia. Or maybe I'm just a sockpuppet. Who can even tell?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:26 AM
1

Dude, are you really resorting to accusing us of all being sockpuppets of one person?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 02:10 AM
0

You are just incapable of admitting that you are responsible for misreading a short comment. You insist on placing the blame on other people.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 01:10 AM
0

it would have been more clear had it been in place of the initial sentence It is common for citations to be placed after quotes.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:52 AM
1

the grassroots of the abortion movement advocates without any real understanding that this is what they're supporting. If you claim that Gosnell is representative of the "abortion movement", then it seems only fair to also require the anti-abortion movement to be responsible for its acts of violence.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:45 AM
0

Hey, in that comment, spermjack_attack included this below the quote: Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, and Singer (2008) Biology, McGraw Hill Did you not see this citation?
/r/MensRights15/05/13 12:36 AM
1

Dude, having a large number of links to shitty websites doesn't make your argument stronger. Honestly, it just makes you look kind of desperate.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:48 AM
1

Now add the fact that the violinist is holding a man's stolen credit card to pay for the procedure. Does the man have the right to take his credit card back? I think the answer to this lies in the context of the scenario, specifically the possibility and feasibility of alternatives. If the scenario is such that there is a decently easy alternative (e.g. if most healthcare was publicly funded) to the man paying, then it would be immoral to not let the man take his credit card back. If in the scen…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:31 AM
0

God that link writer is unnecessarily verbose with their bad arguments. Can't you link to someone less enamored with their own words and with more thought-out positions? Take as a representative example this paragraph: The characteristics of a living organism are clearly defined by the scientific community. These standards are used for many things besides this argument. Application of these standards is the method by which it is determined whether a new discovery is a living organism, a dead org…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:15 AM
2

Oh, I was mostly arguing for a moral right to abortion, not for precedent in the American legal system. My reasoning is that if abortion is moral, then it ought also be legal. Details of the American legal system may be important in how to implement legalization of abortion, but I don't think they are necessary to argue for the morality (and hence legality) of abortion. If bodily autonomy is something we give moral weight, then it is relevant to the moral argument for abortion, regardless of its…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 05:01 AM
1

Let me repeat the second sentence of my previous (three sentence) comment: How does the "scientific" criteria for what constitutes a distinct organism apply to fetuses? You have not demonstrated that a fetus is an organism distinct from the body which hosts it. What is the "scientific criteria" for how to differentiate the two distinct organisms? Can we point to specific physical place and find the border? When does this first occur? Is it immediately at conception? Which step in the complex pro…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:57 AM
1

Cancer cells are living human cells, which would die if taken from the rest of the human body, much like a fetus. How does the "scientific" criteria for what constitutes a distinct organism apply to fetuses? Why are they different from cases that would appear similar?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:47 AM
4

Do you need to demonstrate a medical necessity in order to get an abortion? If not, then it is nothing more than a boob job or a face lift. Did you just compare abortion to cosmetic surgery? Do you think pregnancy is just a matter of physical appearance? Now here's the kicker- if the rights of the mother trump the rights of the clump of cells, then why don't the rights of the father trump the rights of the clump of cells as well? Regardless of how one feels about whether males[1] have a right to…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:45 AM
1

Let us demonstrate logic. That is the most pompous use of the singular we I've seen.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:33 AM
4

Your argument assumed that a fetus is a person. As long as you are just boldly asserting such controversial claims without even the awareness that it needs argument, there's nothing to say to you. You clearly have not thought about the issue in an objective manner and considered it from multiple angles.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:27 AM
1

You can't stick to a basis for your arguments. Um, I was making a different argument from the one in the OP. I don't think multiple arguments existing for abortion is a "problem with the pro-choice argument in general".
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:17 AM
0

In many cancer treatments, you are killing living human cells. Unless you can demonstrate that a fetus is a "being" as you put it, in addition to further showing that fetuses are living (as if anyone would claim otherwise...), you have not shown that abortion is not comparable to other medical treatments.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:15 AM
2

I find it funny that you are criticizing spermjack_attack for feigning confusion in light of ddxxdd's comment here: On the other hand, this is a great way to have a discussion with a feminist, start out like you're supportive of feminist thought, and then throw a massive MRA curveball at them. It's practically the only way for them to see things our way. If being dishonest about your viewpoints is wrong---pathological even!---then why are you not also calling out ddxxdd for it?
/r/MensRights14/05/13 04:09 AM
-1

"suffering" is a strange word to use for pregnancy, as "treatment" is for abortion. It's only strange because of how abortion has become such a moralized issue in our society. If it were not moralized, and was considered purely a medical treatment, then it would not appear unusual. And no, you shouldn't be denied treatment for a broken leg, but neither should you have special provisions made for you because of it. I am not arguing for special provisions. Similarly, the argument that abortion as …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:54 AM
2

You're style hasn't changed. This is pathological. That word. I don't think you know what it means.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:44 AM
1

Except in extremely rare cases, you don't just "wake up" pregnant. You have to have engaged in sexual activity first, in full knowledge that you MAY just end up pregnant. You have failed to show that engaging in sex in consenting to being pregnant. Before you make the obvious rejoinder that pregnancy can be a potential consequence of sex, remember that there are actions people can take to prevent this. For example, they could use condoms, or take contraceptives, or engage in sex without risk of …
/r/MensRights14/05/13 03:39 AM
1

In an effort to make your subreddit appear less hostile, you belittle and badger someone and accuse them of being a liar.... You do realize that undermines what you are trying to show, correct?
/r/MensRights12/05/13 12:53 AM
-1

We want to destroy feminism and replace it with gender egalitarianism in which men and women are treated identically by our government for all intents and purposes. I find it despicable that you are okay with men being mistreated so long as it isn't the government doing it.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:35 AM
2

I actually did not know what GWW was talking about. I honestly thought that she did not understand that humans didn't exist two million years ago. But maybe this is because her explanation for her language comes off as post hoc, as if she's trying to justify her misuse of verbiage after the fact.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:07 AM
-1

Because "human" is easier to type than "our hominid ancestors" or "the ancestors of humans" So you used inaccurate and wrong terminology because it was "easier to type". Wow.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 03:03 PM
-1

So what you are saying is that you invented the term "tournament harem". Gotcha. And humans did evolve from an ancestral species. Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. If this common ancestor is not a human (which it isn't), then why refer to it as human?
/r/MensRights10/05/13 02:30 PM
1

tournament harems What is a tournament harem? The top results from a google search were videos of some video game, an ESPN page about golf, and something about another video game. So it looks like what humans were doing a couple million years ago From wikipedia: Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 02:11 AM
-4

Its not up for discussion that feminists have different rules for men and women, its not something that needs to by proven. If it does not need to be proven, how do you know it's true? If it is already proven, then couldn't you just provide a reference to where it was proven?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:29 PM
-4

A list of assertions (without argument) about unrelated ways feminists are mean nasty harpies does not prove that feminists would be upset if the genders were reversed.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:25 PM
-4

You keep asserting that it is a fact but you have provided absolutely no explanation or argument.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 06:05 PM
-4

Its fact. My assertion is that it is not fact. For example, here is a book by a feminist partially about how the idea that men must be big and strong, that they shouldn't have emotional vulnerabilites or rely upon others, is harmful to men.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:53 PM
-5

I don't think you read what I wrote. I explained the relevance of their gender, and it's not what you think I think it is. I don't think we can move on to address the issue of how you think all feminists must hold a certain very specific view as long as you demonstrate such a blatant inability to read four sentences.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:44 PM
-3

This is why you retards would get up in arms if people were making the same jokes involving women. And I pointed out that spermjack_attack is a man to say that this is not a case of me getting up in arms because people were saying similar things about women. I was preempting the obvious rejoinder to my post. Also, you should stop using the word "retard" (regardless of the gender of the person you are speaking to). It's rather offensive.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:38 PM
-5

If spermjack_attack's gender is irrelevant, then why did you bring up women when talking about feminists getting "up in arms" about sarcasm? I'm confused why you both brought in gender and claimed gender is not relevant.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:33 PM
-1

You sexist retards I know that you are going to claim that you said this sarcastically, so that if someone pointed out you said it, you could then use that as "proof" that feminists get "up in arms" at sarcasm directed towards women. Fortunately, I happen to know that spermjack_attack is in fact a man, so if you were to respond that way, it would be a non sequitur. That said, it's pathetic that you sink to this level of petty vileness in an attempt to attack feminists. Is this the kind of discou…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 05:26 PM
2

"Popular Feminist Graffiti" is a prominent feminist academic?
/r/MensRights05/05/13 03:15 AM
-3

cfornax claimed that putting oneself in a man's shoes would make it obvious why it is offensive to say "tell men not to rape". But this is clearly not true, as you just argued, because there are many men who do not think it is offensive. Thank you for arguing my point for me.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 02:24 PM
-2

There needs to be a Male Perspective of gender dynamics in our current society and how things should operate. There is a men's perspective on gender; many gender theorists are men. The problem here is that since most of them are also feminists, you say that their perspective isn't a true men's perspective. Which you think because (as seen here and in other comments of yours) you don't think feminists can be men. The problem here is that you want to limit "Male Perspective" to meaning the perspec…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:56 PM
-2

Well it's also a bad comparison, insofar as slavery and "tell men not to rape" are not remotely the same. But I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be intelligent enough to recognize that.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:47 PM
1

You feminists sit in your ivory towers of privilege telling men who have been genitally mutilated, institutionally discriminated against since birth, and demonized by the very ideology you espouse, that we are the ones who are privileged. Whoa whoa whoa now, you seem to be assuming that feminists and men are disjoint groups, that no feminists are men. This is false. How can I both sit in an ivory tower of privilege and be institutionally discriminated against and demonized by that same tower?
/r/MensRights01/05/13 11:46 PM
-2

I did not say that the courses were about men because they are men, I said the courses incorporate the perspective of men. Those are clearly not the same thing. I also did not say that incorporating the perspective of men necessarily requires we not incorporate the perspective of women, so the solution would not be e.g. a women's history course. I am just pointing out that CrossHook's lamentation that the educational system ignores the perspective of men has no basis in reality.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:21 PM
-2

Wow, that's an offensive comparison. Good job on making yourself look clueless with regard to issues of race.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:17 PM
2

cupcake I love that you've taken to calling feminists this. <3
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:34 AM
-3

I am a man and I do not find "teach men not to rape" to be insulting or oppressive to men or my gender.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:33 AM
2

They should because that could mean that sexual preference is something that's "built not born". I am bisexual, I think sexuality is socially constructed, and I'm neither nervous nor afraid of that viewpoint.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:27 AM
-10

So... pretty much any other class then? Classes like "what dead men did when they were alive" (history) or "what men wrote" (literature) or "what men painted" (art history) or "what men thought about living things" (biology) or etc. I am not claiming that none of those classes also incorporate the perspective of women, but it is very very silly to say that the ignore they perspective of men.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:26 AM
1

Dude, of course modern bloggers aren't going to write articles attacking feminists who have been criticized for a few decades now. It wouldn't be remotely novel nor interesting content.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 01:54 AM
2

And another aside, although this may be TMI: yes having your anus entered is ungodly painful. That's why I generally don't do it even though I'm a red-blooded 100% cock-loving faggot. Oh my god, thanks for making my point for me! The AVFM author quoted in the blog post talks about the pain of anal rape as being worse for straight men, when that is clearly not the case. What is interesting is that the author could only make this mistake if he didn't speak very much to gay men. If he did, then he …
/r/MensRights28/04/13 01:53 PM
1

Eh, I'm not sure that this conversation could go anywhere else. Once it became clear that you were going to cleave to your transphobia without even a hint of self-reflection, I think the conversation ended.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:04 AM
1

Normally we call this "arguing semantics" and it isn't normally considered a very valid or strong argument against a position. Damn straight I'm arguing about semantics, i.e. the meaning of words. Of course I'm against using words without regard to their meaning. If someone started using the word "utility" to mean "ability to make money," I wouldn't flip the fuck out just because I'm so used to utility having a specific definition in my chosen field. The thing is, there is an actual history of p…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:03 AM
2

I agree. I don't think not wanting to date a trans-woman is anywhere near that example. At all. it is far more akin to not wanting to date an Arab because I don't find Arabs attract5ive for whatever reason... I, for one, would not want to date a trans-woman. I am not attracted to a woman having a penis or a woman who used to be a man. Doesn't do it for me, for whatever reason. It's not for whatever reason, it's because you are transphobic. If you are just open about that, then your problems will…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:58 AM
1

I'm saying a couple things: His misuage of the word "topological" made it look like he doesn't know what he's talking about, as he was using the word incorrectly. For someone who does know what topology is, the misuse is confusing. Is he trying to draw some connection to actual concepts in topology? Is this supposed to be the same thing as when we say things like "a cube is topologically a sphere"? If your writing is harder to understand when people know about the things you are talking about, t…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:54 AM
0

YOU are associating it with some sort of moral value. No one else has yet to. Actually, you just did that a few lines up: He was commenting that, in reality, people do care. And they have every right to care, right or wrong. Overcoming their caring will not be done by ignoring it. You are saying that people place value on "biological" gender. Anyway, I'm not saying that people don't hate transgender people and not want to associate with them. What I am saying is that Geohump's strategy for trans…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:46 AM
1

A couple of physicists wrote a book about certain groups in the social sciences misusing language from mathematics and the physical sciences. You should give it a read.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:34 AM
2

I'm implying that the essentialization of "biological" gender over everything else is deployed to tell transgender people that their identities are worth less than those of cisgender people. The idea of "biological" gender is always associated with some sort of moral value---cisgenderism is the natural, right choice, while transgenderism, while not necessarily bad per se, is inferior.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:32 AM
2

I'm done. I don't waste time on people who look for hate from people who support them, because they report and observe what is really happening objectively My point is that you don't truly support transgender people. You support them doing specific things to protect cisgender people being allowed to refuse to have contact with transgender people (which is really what the whole "disclosure" thing is about). You don't support them, because your arguments for what strategies they should take center…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 06:10 PM
1

topology is the study of surfaces and shapes. No, that is not true. While there are parts of topology that are very geometric in nature, that is only part. Even then, those parts aren't the "study of surfaces and shapes". That would be something much more general. Please stop talking about things you clearly don't understand. It's confusing when you use words completely at odds with their agreed-upon meanings.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 06:05 PM
1

You claim that the actions taken by transgender people lead to societal oppression of transgender people, which also goes by the name transphobia. You claim that these actions will create "open hate and hostility". I do refer to the existing problems of discrimination transgender people face and that although it will be harder AND DANGEROUS to practice a policy to total disclosure, it is going to be the faster path to reducing said discrimination. Earlier you said Living publicly, transgendered,…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:39 PM
3

That is not what topological means. Read the linked Wikipedia article, it might help you.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:33 PM
0

A relationship based on deception is an extraordinarily cruel thing to do to someone, especially someone you ostensibly like/love. It's remarkably selfish to not disclose that information. People ought proactively inform their romantic/sexual partners when they are transphobic or would refuse to knowingly have sex with a transgender person. A relationship based on deception is an extraordinarily cruel thing to do to someone, especially someone you ostensibly like/love. It's remarkably selfish to…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:55 PM
-1

No, I didn't know what he meant. Topological --> Top --> Surface. What do the arrows mean? What does "Top" mean?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 04:48 PM
2

But your issues that derive from being a genetic female who is presenting as a topological male, will be better understood in a transgender forum In what sense are you using the word "topological"? I can not see the connection to how the word is usually used. In fact, it just sounds like nonsense in the context of your post. The only path to success is to be upfront about being a transgendered, topological male. This sentence just reeks of cisgender privilege. People have good reasons to not alw…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 03:25 PM
1

Since heterophobia don't real, they can't be very heterophobic.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 05:01 AM
2

They oppress his grumpy bone :P
/r/MensRights26/04/13 07:33 PM
6

The vast majority of MRAs hate any discussion of game theory. Is that really what PUAs call it, game theory? Do they know that's already a real thing?
/r/MensRights26/04/13 02:30 PM
3

/r/feminisms is a blatantly man hating shithole filled with emotionally damaged cunts You probably shouldn't call women cunts, especially if you're accusing them of gender-based hatred.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 02:02 AM
-1

Oh look, a feminist making false accusations, what a surprise. Oh look, a backhanded accusation that feminists commonly falsely accuse men of rape. Isn't this a false accusation of false accusations?
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:22 PM
-1

As you are someone who doesn't think condescendingly dismissing women and their concerns is misogynistic (see previous conversations), I don't think you are the best one to make that argument. You don't think woman-hating exists in the MRM not because it doesn't exist, but because you refuse to acknowledge it.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 02:19 PM
1

It seems that they don't teach spelling in Womyn's Studees. I don't have a degree in Womyn's Studees. Or even taken classes in a Women's Studies or Gender Studies department. My degree is in math.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:43 AM
-2

So now you're claiming that talking about the reproductive abuse men face at the hands of women is inherently misogynistic? Gott im Himmel but you're bad at reading.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:42 AM
1

You remembered what I said a week ago about referring to people you think are women as "cupcakes"! :D I'm so happy my comment stood out in your mind.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:39 AM
0

I don't think being like r/atheism ought be a goal for anyone. Even r/atheism. Especially r/atheism.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:37 AM
5

This post makes a very deep and subtle---yet important---point. Its well argued and carefully considered opinions have fundamentally changed my conceptualization of the Men's Rights Movement. It is well worth your time to read.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:25 AM
0

the conclusion I draw from the article is it supports FGM as well The blog post pretty explicitly says it does not support FGM or circumcision. For the same reasons. within a society which limits religious and cultural practices in favor for liberal rights, the individual religious and cultural rights of parents may be legitimately curtailed in favor of rights of bodily autonomy of a child.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:14 AM
0

In this place people are actually allowed to speak freely. If people are allowed to speak freely, then surely that means I am allowed to voice discontent with the usage of racial slurs. Or is that speech not free?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 03:20 AM
0

taking the statement to it's [sic] obvious conclusion Explain how it is obvious.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 04:46 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution This page is really long... Evolution must be stupid and ludicrous...
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:13 PM
1

nigga Stay classy.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 04:10 PM
0

"The Schopenhauer"?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:32 PM
1

I'm not the only one who thinks dismissing women and their concerns by referring to them as "cupcakes" looks misogynistic.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:25 PM
-1

And I accept your apology for spouting misogyny.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 11:23 PM
0

If you are too lazy to even check Wikipedia, then I don't see why I should help you. You clearly have no actual desire to learn anything.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:36 PM
2

Do you not care if the MRM comes off as misogynistic?
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:33 PM
1

I'm not claiming that Nietzsche's and Schopenhauer's philosophic work is incorrect. I'm claiming they are misogynists. Their misogyny is very relevant to whether they are misogynists...
/r/MensRights11/04/13 02:30 PM
-1

I'm not. Go to the Wikipedia page on intersectionality and read a little bit about the history of the idea.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:59 PM
-1

Go to the wikipedia page on intersectionality. If you cannot be assed to even look at wikipedia, I don't know why I should for you. Because that is the entirety of any citation I would provide.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:58 PM
-3

It's worth noting that Nietzsche was also a bit of a misogynist, as is quite clear if you've read much of his stuff, so citing Nietzsche as proof Schopenhauer isn't misogynistic is not convincing.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:55 PM
-1

(And also a connection between racism and capitalism.) Are you trying to imply there is not a connection between racism and capitalism? Because if so, you should know you are very wrong.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:53 PM
-1

The statement that no theoretical framework is needed is the statement that understanding how oppression and discrimination functions in society is not needed. How is saying "we don't need to understand things! That's for nerds!" anything but anti-intellectual?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 11:53 PM
-3

Good job. You linked to some very misogynistic writing... You're really convincing me you don't hate women! Women are directly fitted for acting as the nurses and teachers of our early childhood by the fact that they are themselves childish, frivolous and short-sighted; in a word, they are big children all their life long--a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the full-grown man, who is man in the strict sense of the word... And since women exist in the main solely for the propagati…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:56 PM
-9

The statement that no theoretical framework is needed is anti-intellectual. Typhonblue wasn't speaking against a specific theoretical framework, she was speaking against theoretical frameworks in general.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:52 PM
-7

Intersectionality was developed by feminists of color. Stop erasing the contributions of non-white people.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:47 PM
-11

Then the question is just an assertion of anti-intellectualism. That's even worse than how I read it.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:37 PM
4

The cupcake says that men's rights just want equality, When you refer to people you think are women as "cupcakes", it makes the MRM seem misogynistic. Because that sort of dismissal of women and their concerns has a history of misogynistic use.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:35 PM
-2

There is a theoretical framework to the civil rights movement. Have you never read anything by e.g. W.E.B Du Bois?
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:09 PM
7

You keep reducing homophobia (and racism) to people's psychological state, for example with do not have ANY hatred in their hearts By doing this, you are denying the fact that these occur on a societal level, not just a personal level. Oppression exists on the societal level. For example, take the modern institution of marriage---not just the legal aspects, but also the social and cultural. The way the modern institution of marriage is organized, even with the expanding legalization of same-sex …
/r/MensRights04/04/13 01:28 AM
7

I'm of the opinion that homophobic people are morally bad people and society should not coddle them. I of course don't think they should be thrown in jail just for being bigoted asswads. However, I do think it's absurd to think that we should protect them and their bigotry. If they are too homophobic to function in society---because we won't hide our gays so the homophobe can avoid the discomfort of having to be around those they find so vile---then the impetus is upon them to change. The rest o…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 12:36 AM
12

Are straight males allowed to feel uncomfortable? Is it OK for straight males to speak about discomfort out loud? Not if your discomfort is entirely "I don't want faggots near me".
/r/MensRights03/04/13 11:58 PM
-1

if it helps your conscience, my brother was with his bf/partner before he made the transition, and they are still together So... in your attempt to refute claims of your transphobia, you refer to a trans woman using the word "he". You are not helping your case.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:30 PM
-1

For instance, I have a gay brother currently married to a trans-woman. First, your gay brother, is currently married to a transwoman? Forgive me for speaking from a privileged position of actually knowing what people's identities usually mean, but I think at least one word in what you said is wrong. Even then, having a transgender sister-in-law does not mean you cannot be transphobic. Are you stupid as well as transphobic to not realize this? And you don't get to decide who else's is valid. I di…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:18 AM
-2

Your earlier comment was an announcement that you weren't familiar with many of the listed names. And that you are really transphobic. I don't think you are in a state to be talking about credibility.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 01:07 AM
2

I can tell you from personal experience that it is very possible to get downvoted in r/feminism.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 03:19 AM
2

the sexual trade-union theory of feminism (feminism as a trade-union set up by women to suppress competition by younger/more attractive women) Do you know who came up with this theory? Do you have links to any articles about it?
/r/MensRights24/03/13 10:35 PM
2

I know that the whole "death of the author" thing is in vogue, but I feel it is only reasonable to consider my claims in interpreting what I say. If I say that I believe the opposite of what you claim I believe, then it is not convincing to assert that I am in error about what I actually believe.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:49 AM
2

I'm sorry but I fail to see the contradiction. I actually explicitly said that I think people order each other by intelligence.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:37 AM
3

I did not say that I don't think you can order people by intelligence. (I don't know why you said "well-ordered". Are you using that in the technical sense of the term?) I did say I think your criterion is bad.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:27 AM
3

if you were smarter than them, you would be able to simulate the workings of their mind in your own mind, I don't think that follows. I suppose that I cannot speak for you, but no one I've ever talked to has conceptualized intelligence in that way. We all use different ways to compare people by intelligence. E.g. "she's more knowledgeable, well-spoken, and insightful than he is; she's smarter than he is". We don't think "I wonder if Alice can simulate Brianna's mind? I don't know. I shall simula…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:17 AM
3

I don't understand why you are following me around as if I am interesting in having a discussion with you. I just want to say snide things at you because I think you are really stupid. It's not derailing, because we were already off the tracks. From a few posts above. Your response was You can't even say snide things because I shut them down. I don't think just an assertion that you shut things down counts as actually shutting things down. I certainly don't feel shut down.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:57 AM
2

Shut down how? It doesn't stop me from responding. The only place sufficiently far removed from reality for you to be shutting me down is your own small little mind.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:41 AM
2

I don't understand why you are following me around as if I am interesting in having a discussion with you. I just want to say snide things at you because I think you are really stupid. It's not derailing, because we were already off the tracks.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:31 AM
4

First, it's whomever. Second, are you really trolling through my user page to find more comments of mine? Isn't that really pathetic?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:15 AM
3

I don't understand how you can be so fucking stupid.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 11:45 PM
-2

Indeed! I learned you are really stupid. That was new information for me! :D
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:22 AM
-5

I didn't realize I was Wikipedia.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:13 AM
0

It is a matter of fact that there is a variety of feminist thought. If you don't think that, it is because you think something which is not true.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:09 AM
0

If you are looking to criticize feminism, then the distinctions between different lines of feminist thought are very important. DavidBryon was criticizing feminism. The fact that many feminists do not agree with the views he is criticizing is very, very relevant.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:07 AM
2

A good chunk of feminist writing is criticizing the views of other feminists. Why else do you think there are so many different varieties of feminist thought?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:27 AM
3

I don't think it is a very strong argument to demonstrate that some prominent feminists have said all men should die. (However, I would still like to see a citation for that.) It doesn't establish that most or even many feminists share those views. As feminists tend to be relentlessly critical of the views of other feminists, I think you need more than a few examples. Even if an idea was widely supported by feminists of decades ago, that doesn't mean many modern feminists will support it. Thinki…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:58 AM
0

You don't want a training bra, little girl. You want all men in the world to be dead.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:30 AM
2

The contention is that the "actual scientific evidence" does not show what you think it shows. The fact that you have repeatedly failed to grasp that that is what people are arguing makes me suspect that you lack a commitment to the truth. If you truly cared about your views on reality being accurate, then you wouldn't blindly reject everything which disagrees with you as unscientific.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:56 PM
2

How does one know what the facts are? It seems we must answer that question before we can determine who is or is not interested in facts. Edit: Hubbard's contention is that claims that were made by scientists about gender were actually not facts. Her claim is that the methods used to produce these "facts" about gender aren't valid means of doing science. That sounds to me like like the viewpoint of someone who is interested in the facts.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:35 PM
2

So you aren't denying that he is a political gender ideologue?
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:34 PM
2

It sounds like your definition of "political gender ideology" is views on gender with which you disagree. I don't see how else a comedian who made a documentary sparking a political campaign to close a political organization for gender policy and research is not a "political gender ideologue" while the Ivy League biologist who writes academic articles on the interactions between the sciences and gender is.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:20 PM
-1

The word is cisgender. There is no space, no special capitalization, and it doesn't end in "ed".
/r/MensRights20/03/13 03:32 AM
85

Did you really just repost the top comment from r/lgbt on this link?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 03:06 PM
10

The sad thing is "peer review" essentially boils down to, well everyone else believes it so it must be true. Unfortunately, for those of us schooled in epistemology that is a completely invalid proof. Academic philosophers, among them epistemologists, use peer review in their journals.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 01:15 AM
5

lol If women ruled the world, a given country would declare war at the same time every month.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 06:10 AM
5

This is both pretentious and stupid. Good job!
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:58 AM
1

I should point out that I was being rather sarcastic in that comment, which was in r/againstmensrights.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:26 AM
1

I got an IQ of 135, with a mathematical slant of spotting patterns. Please don't slander mathematics by associating it with yourself. Thanks.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 02:59 AM
2

It was edited within a few minutes of it being posted. Sorry I didn't think to grab a screenshot for proof.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 04:52 PM
1

I'm not completely sure what you mean by "potential for oppression", but I'll use it because my point is unchanged whether I use that phrase or just "oppression". Where does intersectionality claim that being in two inferior halves confers necessarily greater potential for oppression than only being in one? Why do you think this must be the case? I'll use a metaphor, because these seem to be all the rave. Alice has 2 cups. Bob has 1 cup. Who can hold more water? It's not enough to know that Alic…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 02:01 AM
1

Where does it say that oppression is measured by the number of oppressed categories one falls into? You are the one who is claiming that that is a measure of oppression.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:18 AM
0

This is a pretty blatant tu quoque.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:00 AM
0

He's pretty upfront about I_love_bees being his account in his first comment in this thread: Note: I_love_bees is my old account. I do still really love bees. Good job on noticing spermjack_attack is I_love_bees! That was a really keen observation you made!
/r/MensRights10/03/13 12:49 AM
-2

Is it against the rules to have unclear subjects of debate? If not, then how is your comment relevant to spermjack_attack's post here?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:52 PM
2

Honest question: why are you using "A = A"? Are you using that equation as a metasyntactic variable? Wouldn't it be clearer to just use "A"?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:05 PM
2

I don't see why it's so hard to google an unfamiliar acronym and why I am the one who is responsible for your misunderstanding. Especially when my parenthetical clearly mentioned that ZFC is a set theory.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:57 PM
-1

But whence the usage of things like "A=A"? Why this equation?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:34 PM
1

I don't think you know what set theory or ZFC (which isn't even a variable...) is. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice is very much inherently mathematical. It's a mathematical theory regarding certain mathematical objects. Other set theories are also mathematical. They all have virtually nothing to do with what bell hooks has said. A variable is just a logical set of attributes. This not how any logician, philosopher, or mathematicians uses the word "variable". I do not underst…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:30 PM
0

You've reworded what I said. X has specific properties. Therefore, X is X and X cannot be Y That's not what I said. I would never say something so stupid. Nothing in the law of identity has anything to do with properties at all. It would hold in a logic without properties at all (even if such a logic would be horribly boring). A consequence of the law of identity is that if X has a property, then X has that property. However, that is not the law of identity itself.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:22 PM
-1

That is not the law of identity. Sorry, but you don't actually know what you are talking about. The law of identity is simply that for any X, X = X. A thing is equal to itself. It is not what you said. Edit: also what you claim collectivists believe doesn't actually contradict the law of identity. It is possible for things to be themselves while also other things are equivalent (note that equivalent is not the same thing as equal) in some respect to them.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:12 PM
-7

Feminism is a broad body of thought with a diverse group of thinkers behind it. Are you surprised that it is difficult to nail down a firm definition? Are you surprised that it's hard to summarize the wide variety of views of many people? You're committing the fundamental error that spermjack_attack is criticizing: thinking that feminism is a very narrow collection of views, without substantial disagreement among its supporters.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:10 PM
-1

... ... ... Are you fucking stupid? Do you even know what the law of identity is?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:03 PM
8

logic-based, Lol what are Vulcans?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:57 PM
-1

I don't understand what you are saying... I don't understand your usage of equations here. Are you saying that feminists deny the law of identity?
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:54 PM
-3

If I add an 3rd wheel to a bicycle and keep calling it a bicycle, that is no longer a bicycle by the definition of the word. It is a tricycle. Sure, there are similarities, but that is still something different. This is a bad metaphor and you should feel bad. Are you really comparing complex ideas and theories about how society is structured to a fucking bicycle? Your metaphor about pies is also rather bad. Further, "intersection" is used in non-set theoretic senses. It is rather disingenuous to…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:52 PM
-5

Affirmative action.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 04:26 AM
0

Only if they want to be convinced. Oh, you're just ignorant of psychology. That's cool So why don't you, instead of just sending back a misinterpretation of what I write, actually say what's wrong with it? Lets hear it. I explained what's wrong your last paragraph: it's fallacious reasoning. When faced with a potential counterexample to your claim, you declare that it's not a real counterexample for contrived reasons. Why does "meaningful" disagreement with a policy necessarily require dropping …
/r/MensRights08/02/13 09:28 PM
0

You fail to acknowledge that consumer behavior can be created by marketing campaigns. It's not the case that consumers exist in a state where corporations have no means of shaping or creating their desires. If you can consistently get others to make certain decisions (e.g. by using psychological tricks), then you have power. It doesn't matter that others are a part of the decision making process, or that some of them will not go along with what you want. You are still able to convince large numb…
/r/MensRights08/02/13 08:41 PM
1

This is a democracy. The electorate is what drives politics. Politicians only say what they believe will get/keep them in office. And the consumer is what drives the economy. CEOs only get/stay there if they can capitalize on consumer behavior. You cannot honestly believe that. For you to believe that, you'd have to deny, amongst other things, the impact of lobbying on politics and the impact of marketing on consumer behavior.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 07:55 PM
-3

I'm revoking your privilege to use the word "logic"; you clearly have no clue what it means. Do me a favor and read a few textbooks on formal logic before attempting to use that now-banned word. In particular, you should learn the difference between a statement being consistent with a theory and a statement being logically entailed by a theory. You should also attempt to gain a vocabulary. For example, learn what the word "equation" means (hint: it is not synonymous with "syllogism").
/r/MensRights04/02/13 08:08 PM
-15

But SRS isn't full of misogynists who make anti-feminist arguments...
/r/MensRights27/01/13 01:28 AM
4

Why does everyone keep putting a hyphen in "cisgender"? I don't understand.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:10 PM
24

Women can be cisgender, bro. The word doesn't just apply to men; that wouldn't even make sense.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 04:13 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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