TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gillesthegreat Archive

View 2 posts and 101 comments by gillesthegreat 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)
3

That's not how life expectancty works. In 2014 (last published year at mortality.org), life expectancy for women at age 58 was 23 additional years. For men at 63, it was 14 additional years. Your point is generally correct that 23 > 14. There is no need to use poorly interpreted data like 1 vs 17 to make your point
/r/MensRights10/03/24 04:23 PM
1

|The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, saying Mustafa Y.'s adultery-based divorce lawsuit was filed outside the 5-year statute of limitations Man loses out on rights because he failed to abide by basic rules of civil procedure ... that's what your title should have been.
/r/MensRights17/07/23 09:07 PM
0

To anyone trying to claim there is no biology at play, go ahead and try to explain why mortality is higher for males at age 0 ... and even in utero.
/r/MensRights19/03/23 01:12 AM
3

I'm astonished anyone could think that was serious
/r/MensRights20/10/22 06:09 PM
-14

Violates half + 7. I believe that's the law in 38 states?
/r/MensRights20/10/22 01:26 PM
1

|While there may be some biology at play Not may ... is. Look at mortality for ages 0-1, across the globe. Always higher for males. And they're not being mistreated at greater rates, or fighting wars, or being murdered, In fact, at just about every age, male mortality is higher. Sure, exogenous variables matter, but don't rely on shoddy analysis by an amateur out to prove a preconceived notions using *checks notes* data pertaining to British Ducal Families, to reach 'universal' conclusions about…
/r/MensRights23/09/22 11:26 PM
1

Even if women had more accidents, the payout is not the same for all accidents. One crash at 50 MPH costs a lot more than five crashes at 10 MPH. That's one of several possible explanation for the data.
/r/MensRights30/10/21 12:09 AM
3

They would definitely dare, if it were legal. Some actually try to capture race via other variables
/r/MensRights29/10/21 10:33 PM
5

I still don't understand how women are perceived Because the insurers rely on actual data, not impressions
/r/MensRights29/10/21 10:31 PM
1

Since people are apparently still spewing nonsense about 'entrapment', here's the intro to the Wikipedia entry: Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fr…
/r/MensRights18/10/21 06:13 PM
1

Some of you need to go read the definition of 'entrapment'.
/r/MensRights18/10/21 01:41 PM
3

Now for sex-selective abortion, however ...
/r/MensRights11/05/21 09:38 PM
4

Daily Wire is a right-leaning source, to be generous, and they're quoting Republican Senators only. Do you really take this 'investigation' at par value?
/r/MensRights06/11/18 07:58 PM
5

4000 interviews x 2% interview 'rate' = about 80 interviews. They claim 13 significant parameters out of that. I, for one, would very much like to see the p-values.
/r/MensRights09/01/18 07:00 AM
1

There are methods to conduct surveys on sensitive issues. But the major failing here is that it is not at all systematic or statistically unbiased. The people using this app AND weighing in on the issue are nowhere near random.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 03:02 AM
3

This fails "survey methodology 101".
/r/MensRights11/08/17 06:15 AM
0

Washington Times. Enough said.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 02:45 PM
8

The article wasn't published in any real journal of substance. This is in no way proof of any sort of intellectual bankruptcy of any ideology of movement. It's just proof that, for a small sum of money, you can get anything 'published' in an 'academic journal'.
/r/MensRights22/05/17 07:21 PM
1

Republicans come out with such lists every so often. They're almost always misleading. These things are written to piss people off. Don't fall for it. So in this case, wait for the actual price tag. Yes, any price is too much, but the NSF would not spend 400K on just this.
/r/MensRights30/11/16 08:25 AM
1

Sounds a lot like this discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ob3b9/women_live_longer_and_other_horrendous/ The main article is deleted, but the comments remain. And I don't feel like copying them here to show that there is indeed a 'natural gap' in life expectancy at birth between men and women that has nothing to do with discrimination or behavior or environment. On top of that gap, there is too the effect of those factors, of course. But men are indeed the weaker sex when i…
/r/MensRights31/07/16 07:46 PM
2

To be fair, they are preoccupied with the legal definition, how Orwellian it might be. They want to make sure they won't get sued. This would be a lot clearer if they used instead the expression 'unlawful discrimination'.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 03:22 PM
45

Professor of philosophy where, out of curiosity? Haven't managed to find it.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 03:54 AM
1

Le Dame Footwear
/r/MensRights01/10/14 04:51 PM
8

Can't recall source, but apparently, there is only one company that makes the oversized shoes for this. And they are making a killing. Suggesting perhaps they have a vested interest in keeping such silly things going. Anybody ever heard this and know the source?
/r/MensRights01/10/14 06:43 AM
1

Caveat: I know nothing of the actual statistics. But here is a situation (which may have nothing to do with these stats) where a claim like that one could be true, yet, at the same time mean the exact opposite of the conclusion put forth. 10 People each of group A and B are accused of a crime. In group A, only one person gets convicted, gets 10 years. In group B, everyone gets convicted, with sentences from 1 to 10 years (steps of one). The average sentence for those convicted in group A is 10 y…
/r/MensRights20/07/14 05:48 PM
8

Probably just haste and are emotion. But one wonders ... How hard is it to check details? Lépine killed 14, not 17.
/r/MensRights27/05/14 07:02 AM
2

Slightly disturbing, but given that the video evidence was deemed inadmissible, the likelihood of conviction might have been close to nil.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 07:23 AM
1

Thanks for the correction. Still not sure I really trust this. But if true, I'm still slightly disturbed that 30% would agree that anybody deserves to be raped.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 05:26 AM
3

Beyond the proportion dying of each disease, you may also want to consider the potential years of life lost (PYLL). I would spend more money trying to save the 0.05% of people dying at age 0 then the 1% who die at age 80. You would have to look at the age of death of those afflicted with each disease.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:00 PM
-3

If the plan is only for a man and does not cover others, the fact that coverage is included does not mean the insurer is charging anything more than it would if the coverage was absent.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:57 AM
0

To be fair, though, how much do you think the insurer will add to the price of coverage for this particular item?
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:30 AM
4

The immunity covers the acts performed while discharging duties, no matter how egregious, if they were within the realm of the duties.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 01:55 AM
6

Barred ... judicial immunity.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 12:26 AM
1

Race and class matter, but don't omit as well the false confessions. Those played a significant role in this case.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:24 PM
2

First of all, no one here (afaik) is suggesting that biology plays no role whatsoever. OP doesn’t outright deny that, but this claim is staggering nonetheless: My argument is that it is either much smaller than portrayed, or that men actually have a biological advantage rather than disadvantage given the lifespan gap is as small as it is. Groundbreaking arguments usually require substantial evidence. You seem to take offense at the OP's mention of maths, as if it was some kind of insult to epide…
/r/MensRights14/10/13 10:33 PM
0

Life expectancy is by definition an average. Writing 'average life expectancy' already discredits your understanding. I'm going to venture that you do not know how to calculate a life expectancy at all. The math is not linear. But of course. I forget. Demography and epidemiology are nothing more than branches of math, with no independent corpus of knowledge and associated concepts, definitions, language, methods and processes. Frankly, those departments should not exist, as they are clearly and …
/r/MensRights13/10/13 06:33 PM
0

All Caps? Well now I'm certainly convinced.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 06:04 PM
0

If you have provided enough evidence, then your paper is ready for publication. Since you will probably never trust that I have the credentials I say I do, and then refuse to accept that I should have any authority after I give you my personal info and you verify that I do indeed have those credentials, may I propose we bypass this sordid display of escalating disbelief and suggest that you contact a public health or demography professor from your local university? Perhaps the very one when you …
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:59 PM
0

And as soon as you demonstrate that with sufficient evidence in a respected peer-reviewed publication, you'll win countless honors and awards.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:45 PM
0

Publish or shut up. You must be kidding. No. I'm not kidding. You seem to have 'discovered' a 'fact' that is in such opposition to the generally and vastly accepted consensus on an important point that your 'work' needs to be shared with the world. Else, you kind of sound like the guy who claims to have built the free-energy machine but is suppressed by big oil.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:39 PM
0

Cited for the references. Which you overlook.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:36 PM
0

Prove it with evidence, not by waving your dick around and throwing credentials at me. I usually don't, but you stated something along the lines of 'listen to me, I'm a mathematician'. I don't care what some study says if the math tells me something different! Impressive. Studies also tell us that men are almost never abused, that women don't rape, that girls are smarter Why don't we believe these things? MATH! Actually we express disbelief of those based on improper study design. From http://ww…
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:15 PM
0

I make the claim based on the dozens of peer reviewed I've seen on the topic of gender differentials in life expectancy (out of the probably 100 that exist). All of them agree that behavioral factors account for only a portion of the differential and that some biological factors do exist, independent of social considerations. And the notion that demog and epi are derivative of math and that therefore your expertise somehow is equivalent to mine is very offensive. Math also sits atop of physics, …
/r/MensRights13/10/13 04:47 PM
0

The risk of death at all ages for men is higher than for females. Read that again ... at all ages. That includes 0 through 5, when risky behavior is not exactly an issue of tremendous importance. Later on in life, risky behavior is certainly an issue, but there is actually a biological difference. Dr. Kass is actually correct. You may be a mathematician, but I'm a demographer and epidemiologist.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:45 AM
-1

People failing to see sarcasm again, I see ...
/r/MensRights01/06/13 07:19 AM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
/r/MensRights04/04/13 12:09 AM
1

Anyone can just claim anything they want and the legal system will have to agree with it, That's not how criminal laws work. If something is unclear, you don't get convicted.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 05:25 PM
1

I don't have any issue with making online "threats" and "harassment" illegal, as long as those two terms are clearly and reasonably defined.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 05:48 PM
4

Having then sign one before the wedding is common, if she wanted counsel, he would have to have the time to review it before signing it, yes. From memory and without checking, but I do believe that my Bar review books told me that was a big red flag that the prenup would not be honored by the courts.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:02 PM
1

Very true
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:25 AM
6

The better argument is that regardless of the 83%, we should be looking at what actually happens in the 17% where fathers do fight. Who wins then?
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:49 PM
72

Here's where he went wrong: "So Pressil let Anetria and the boys stay at his home and he agreed to pay child support." Once a man assumes fatherhood, it becomes extremely difficult to change that.
/r/MensRights24/11/12 11:15 PM
1

Probably not. This is for extreme cases, of the order of "not allowed to leave the home, not even to see family". This is more for the mail-order bride type of situation. I'm guessing not many cases at all will be brought under this law, and those that are will be clearly meritorious.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 11:37 PM
1

The new definition will not be written into law, however, as the CSJ has proposed. Instead it will be broadened to define domestic violence as ‘any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality’. aka, don't have a cow. This is actually a decent shot at writing a law that has a useful purpose. Physical violence is not the …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 11:06 PM
3

"She is yet to be sentenced" Keep your pants on people ... just about all criminal defendants are represented to the courts as nice people who just suffered from temporary weakness
/r/MensRights10/08/12 04:20 PM
3

It should be a slam dunk to get an injunction to prevent it. Even when both parents are willing, it is usually unlawful to do anything to your child that leaves them with permanent physical damage. Ear piercing and circumcision are somehow ignored, but you can't get your 4 year old tattooed. So if one parent objects, a court should prevent it.
/r/MensRights06/08/12 07:18 PM
0

Since it's more or less a meta-analysis, we'd have to look at all the quoted underlying studies and look at the data therein, if any. This could take a while.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 08:00 AM
1

Look to the source http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/396/396.F3d.807.01-2050.99-3892.99-3891.99-3336.99-3076.html "Before ROVNER, WOOD and EVANS, Circuit Judges." This is not her decision alone, it's a panel. Don't personalize this too much.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:45 AM
1

Not that I know anything about the case, but I'm going to speculate that DMX got formal notice of the mother's claim a long, long time ago and is only now contesting it. If so, he could be screwed ... the law only allows you so much time to respond to formal proceedings.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 07:53 PM
1

these stupid statutory laws we have in this county are ludicrous. People keep posting these articles just to drive this point home
/r/MensRights25/10/11 05:03 PM
1

not clear at all. It certainly doesn't make any discernible point, and consequently doesn't seem to belong here.
/r/MensRights20/09/11 06:46 PM
3

A - This is over a year old. No current update? B - This article is very, very short. How many unknown facts could make this perfectly reasonable and not at all a horror story about a system run amok? C - If she did indeed forego acting or modelling opportunities worth substantial amounts of money, would she not be entitled to compensation People, retain your outrage for the truly outrageous cases.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 09:08 PM
1

You shouldn't be mixing Reddit and BarBri ... get back to the books!
/r/MensRights08/07/11 03:18 AM
2

It may be that such arguments (I had it and I'm fine) are downvoted for the grossly deficient value of said arguments. "My grandfather smoked all his life and never got cancer" is not exactly a hard-hitting argument in a discussion of the health effects of tobacco.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 09:38 AM
2

From the decision: "But Oregon's ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a "neutral law of general applicability," in the Court's phrasing. The Court characterized Smith's and Black's argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon's neutral, generally …
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:42 AM
2

Confusing equal protection standards with first amendment. Disparate impact applies to protected classes under the 14th. This is a straight up 1st amendment, so you have to appraise with the "generally applicable" standard. Edit: I see your point. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah clarifies. As long as the law does not specifically target the religion, it would be constitutional. Here, it would definitely be held valid.
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:39 AM
11

It does not fail on 1st Amendment grounds. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
/r/MensRights19/05/11 04:21 AM
1

Don't blame the DOJ for this - they're part of the executive branch. Here, the blame lies with the legislative branch.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 04:43 AM
6

Due process is not necessarily related to criminal matters. You're correct the state has no obligation, but they cannot take away the opportunity, especially if you started. What is and isn't a property interest can get tricky and there is jurisprudence to outline the boundaries. But here, I think it falls well within the lines.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 10:13 PM
10

Government school. You would have to argue that the student has a property right in obtaining a diploma; that doesn't seem far fetched. In that case, deprivation without a sufficient procedure is unconstitutional. And the procedure described in the article seems insufficient.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 08:24 PM
13

Seems like there is a due processed clause case here
/r/MensRights07/03/11 06:55 PM
1

Well, the part about women's income and general development is very well documented, but the idea that direct transfers may prove sufficient might in fact find empirical support only in pilot studies. It would still be not completely frivolous to attempt. As for rights v. economics, one could argue that for the free market to work, agents must have the capacity to act. I'm not sure we can isolate rights from economic agency. But I too would very like much to see in which countries they plan to o…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 07:58 PM
1

I would guess their reply to be: there exists some empirical evidence that one gets better returns on the investment if the funds are targeted at young girls. The thing is, the data actually says that, or at least did, back when I paid attention in grad school 10 years ago. That was not propaganda, unless you grossly discount serious econ, demography and public health journals. And frankly, I do believe that the countries they are targeting are places where there are actually significant gender …
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:10 PM
1

Why is there such resistance here to accept the fact that this is not a case of feminism run amok, and merely sound statistical practices implemented to gain more accurate (read that ... accurate! Not biased) survey results? By denouncing what should not be, you're making hared to fight when it is indeed justified.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:53 AM
1

When one oversamples, one does not 'give extra weight'. If you oversample women by a factor of 200%, you would divide by 2 when reporting percentages. The oversampling only serves to reduce the variance of the measured estimates of the smaller group.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:50 AM
1

That statement right there shows you don't understand what oversampling is and how it's implemented.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:48 AM
0

Right. They could be asking about over-sampling for the very specific purpose of deceiving by trafficking the results. They could also make the whole thing up. And we should presume that all knives have for primary purpose to be used in stabbings. Sometimes, there just isn't a conspiracy at play. Get over it.
/r/MensRights31/01/11 08:45 AM
16

"over-representing" in this case means polling more than the proportion to obtain more precise statistical quantities of a particular subgroup. It's a bit akin to surveying part of a map with a magnifier to get better resolution because the detail is smaller. The US census does it all the time; it's the most cost-effective way of increasing accuracy. The overall results would in no way be skewed by this process. It's just a statistical tool.
/r/MensRights30/01/11 08:58 AM
3

The question should rather be why rating on race is not allowed. Rating on just about anything else is, including sex, age, zip code, educational achievement, social groups (AARP for instance), etc. Race is just a very special category; you're just not allowed. So this is not a Mens Rights issue, it's a race issue. Men are charged more because men cost more. P.S. Presuming you were talking about car insurance? For health insurance, 'public policy' considerations come into play. Note the ' '.
/r/MensRights20/10/10 09:41 PM
3

But I do believe she was correct about the IQ. I've heard 72.
/r/MensRights24/09/10 09:40 AM
5

It is entirely possible that one party committed a crime while the other did not. If one party is only using reasonable force in self-defense, it has committed no crime. The fact that one party in this case seems to have terminated the 911 call kind of maybe perhaps a little suggests the remote possibility that that is exactly what happened. How about we let the courts have a look before we claim sexism here?
/r/MensRights10/09/10 01:18 AM
1

The Equal protection argument seems a bit dubious. Still worth a shot if all else fails, but I think that the religion claim does not allow a parent to mutilate a child over the objection of the other parent. Irreparable harm + cost/benefit analysis = TRO, and most likely permanent injunction.
/r/MensRights01/09/10 08:06 PM
3

rape is when someone takes something from you that you were unwilling to give them, and if you're willing but unaware of facts that would make you unwilling, it's the same thing. How about you use the word violation to describe that, since rape is a legal word with a legal definition? I'd be fine with that. Also, a second issue: you make it all about the subjective perception of the victim. What is an alleged perpetrator to do if he or she cannot read the mind of the victim? What if I am neglige…
/r/MensRights22/07/10 05:53 PM
5

It's not a rape in all jurisdictions. And the common law makes a distinction between to kinds of deception: one where you lie about the very nature of the act, and one where you lie about collateral things. If you lie and say that "this is not sex, it's treatment for your acne", it's rape. If you lie and say you're left-handed to induce a woman to have sex (I'm sure the fetish is out there), it would not be rape. Let me be clear however: lying is wrong. And deceiving someone to have sex is wrong…
/r/MensRights22/07/10 04:08 PM
2

Discriminating on gender is about as wrong as discriminating on race, religion, or sexuality Well, in US law, there actually is a gradient. Discriminating on race is almost never allowed. See 13th Amendment. Discrimination on sex is still usually not allowed, but it can be done. The evidence and purpose one has to show is less than for race, though. As for religion and sexuality, private actors certainly can discriminate.
/r/MensRights29/06/10 06:11 PM
-2

We especially need more male grammar teachers. The kind of teacher that teaches student the proper use of commas.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 12:21 AM
1

Duress may negate Mens Rea in this case, if the 30-year-old pressured her into going along. Frankly, I would be inclined to give her a shot at the defense.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 12:25 AM
2

I have to take issue with car insurance costing more. That's actually quite fair. Just like paying more for life insurance. The rates are set according to underlying risk. Males have more accidents (and maybe costlier accidents). You can't really blame anyone for that except the empirical evidence.
/r/MensRights19/04/10 04:34 AM
1

Idiot. The very title of the article: "Supreme Court expected to tackle 'sleeping sex slave' question" The appellate court has overturned the court of first instance. The Supreme Court hasn't said anything yet.
/r/MensRights11/04/10 07:51 AM
2

The act is sexual intercourse. That's the first sentence of the statute. The definite article "the" in section can only refer to something that has been defined already. "[...] an act of sexual intercourse" is the only act mentioned. You're trying to make "The act" refer to 'whatever act was consented'. The qualification "essential characteristic of the act" is very limiting. Were it absent, you could argue about what is and isn't a characteristic of the act. You're not a real blond? Those were …
/r/MensRights07/04/10 06:31 AM
1

"I was saying that those two steps alone are not the most valuable parts of an addition of law to a discussion." Perhaps, but they are essential steps. Too often, people just hang their 'analysis' on sky hooks. But your point is taken.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 04:18 AM
5

"Consent is in essence a contract, and any violation of the conditions of consent is a violation of the consent (contract) itself." Mistake #1: Mixing criminal law (rape) with civil law (contracts). Mistake #2: In contracts, there is no 'consent'. There is only a 'meeting of the minds'. Mistake #3: you cannot enter into a contract for sexual relations (save in that part of Nevada, and maybe Rhode Island). Lesson: don't use legal sounding words that you do not understand. Else, you're starting do…
/r/MensRights07/04/10 03:52 AM
2

"(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact." Is wearing a condom an "essential characteristic of the act"? I would say no, since one can have sex with or without a condom. It just might be that, under this CA statute, the only actions are for assault (criminal) and battery (civil tort). But then again, I got a lousy grade in crim law.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 03:46 AM
2

Criminal law is the province of the states. There is very little federal criminal law. I doubt there's a federal rape statute.
/r/MensRights07/04/10 03:41 AM
20

Upvoted for actually reading and quoting the law
/r/MensRights06/04/10 11:52 PM
5

"It's not rape." "I believe that "Rape" is the forced taking of another against their will in a violent and brutal manner." Two statements: one strong and absolute, the other waffly. The first one may or not be correct. The second one is definitely wrong. Has nothing to do with brutality or violence; it's about consent. If someone is asleep, drunk, or incapable of consent for reasons of mental defect or age, it is rape, however gentle you are. And lack of consent does not require forceful refusa…
/r/MensRights06/04/10 11:51 PM
3

It would not be rape. Rape is penetration without consent. It would be however battery (tort). There are some cases on the books for sex without adequate disclosure of STD status. The woman did not consent to 'that kind' of contact, so it qualifies as "intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact to the person". So rape, probably no. Battery (which gets you money damages), most definitely.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 01:25 AM
4

Just to make matters a bit more complicated (and I'm not saying spending disparities are not important or significant): the vast majority of gender-neutral research is in fact not so gender-neutral after all. For almost all those neutral cases (like heart disease or diabetes), pharmaceutical or behavioral research is performed on healthy males aged x1 to x2. The results are extrapolated to and presumed valid for females. This may not be true in all cases, and certainly isn't in some cases (which…
/r/MensRights12/11/09 05:09 AM
4

How about the automotive industry, beer, sports, or anything where the money is actually spent by males?
/r/MensRights22/10/09 02:44 AM
4

Marquis ... no terminal 'e'. That vowel would make the title feminine.
/r/MensRights04/10/09 10:04 AM
-2

Did your friend also tell you that one can object to the introduction of evidence at that the judge may refuse to allow it if it is, on balance, overly prejudicial?
/r/MensRights03/09/09 04:10 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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