TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gingerkid1234 Archive

View 0 posts and 40 comments by gingerkid1234 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)
3

Jew visiting. His last name is Eastern European, but almost certainly not Yiddish. -ski names exist among Jews, but they're far more common among non-Jewish people whose ancestors are from Eastern Europe. The "Pjotr" part of the name is definitely not Jewish, too. I'd wager his minority religion is Eastern Orthodoxy.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 01:03 AM
12

You might even say it's...the white man's burden.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:35 PM
2

It's going to depend on the jurisdiction, but it seems like the general rule is that you have to be visibly intoxicated. Visible intoxication is irrelevant--you can be buzzed and take a shot while signing and it won't be voidable. See Lucy v. Zehmer, wherein a contract was not voidable. Not only was it written and signed by guys who'd been drinking, but it was written and signed in a bar on a napkin. Alcohol wasn't the primary issue in that case, though. Anyway, though that's right that courts a…
/r/MensRights28/12/12 05:24 PM
4

You don't have to be taken advantage of. If the contract was made while so intoxicated that you didn't realize you were making a contract, it's voidable (but not void) on the part of the drunk person. Drunk contracts aren't void, they're voidable, and they don't require being taken advantage of.
/r/MensRights28/12/12 04:31 PM
5

All his movies are about that.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 11:45 PM
1

I think almost all that she offers has no definiteness to it so it wouldn't be considered a valid offer, she's the one demanding to be taken to movies and sporting events. Fair enough. I honestly believe she would be laughed out of so many attorneys offices if she showed up demanding this to be enforced. I would imagine so. It's tough to find anything right with that "contract".
/r/MensRights20/11/12 01:39 PM
3

Unconscionability is a defense to a contract. That argument cannot be invoked if there is no valid contract in the first place. There is so much wrong with this "contract" that I don't even know where to start. The lack-of-consideration argument was actually what I was thinking before the previous poster brought up unconscionability. I imagine (without being terribly certain, you know more about this than I do) that you could use that as a defense to the contract if there weren't other issues to…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 09:53 PM
5

Well, it is unconscionable substantively (the terms give her unlimited power over the contract) and procedural (she says flat-out it's a contract of adhesion whose terms cannot be negotiated). However, I think there are more fundamental issues with it. Some of the terms can't be assessed objectively for performance (how do you assess his feelings?). But the big issue is that there's no consideration. Since whatever he receives is contingent on her decision, and she is free to modify the terms af…
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:38 PM
12

The law class I'm taking tells me that this contract isn't enforceable if accepted.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 04:47 PM
2

Well, if I were in a time machine in any other era or quite a few places in the world I'd be killed. I definitely wouldn't have human rights of any sort. Every single one of my ancestors who moved to the US did so because they would've been killed otherwise. Some moved to the countries they moved from to avoid being murdered. Ain't privilege is a cakewalk?
/r/MensRights15/11/12 02:36 AM
3

That's a bit different, though. Someone did actually allege what the newspaper says they did, whether or not it's true. If you put "allegedly" in an ad, no one is alleging it, making the claim empirically false. That does open you up to defamation suits, which is helped by the fact that the motive is malice.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 11:47 PM
4

Usually newspapers use words and phrases like "allegedly" or "according to police" to prevent that.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:03 PM
2

My point is that voting Democrat in no way makes it unlikely that draconian laws will be put in place. It really just changes what those draconian laws will be about.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 09:03 PM
9

What if I told you...that both parties support ridiculous crap
/r/MensRights07/11/12 07:29 PM
11

Surely women cannot be so selfish as to harm their own kids to cover up their lies? Can they? If the question is "surely [person] cannot be so [blank] as to [blank]?!", the answer is usually "yes".
/r/MensRights05/11/12 12:55 AM
0

I don't really know where you're going with this. Most of the things you listed are all either down to someones personal choice, or not related to money. Fair enough, but that's not the point. The point is that everyone makes it clear with their actions that they value their own lives and other's lives as having extremely high, but not infinite, value. Your last sentence however, does make sense. So I guess I should clarify and say that "An amount of money that is easily acquired by a country as…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:28 PM
1

Indeed. For this purpose, the US government uses a unit called a Statistical Human Life or something. Essentially, it's a metric to see if expensive safety improvements are worthwhile.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:00 PM
-1

I agree with the conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that the way he's getting there is flawed.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:25 PM
5

How so? Is the point that life has a high, but not infinite, economic value? If so, I agree. But if people genuinely believe that human life actually has infinite economic value, their decisions would be quite different.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 04:11 PM
-5

Money isn't worth human life. Really? To paraphrase my economics 1 professor, how fast do you drive? You could drastically lower your risk of death by driving slowly. You could also ban knives, and require all foods to he sold pre-chopped. Flying in planes increases cancer risk--that ought to be banned. Motorcycles should be illegal, as should cars without the latest safety features. Though claiming that a human life has infinite value works well for an ethical point of view, from an economic po…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:13 PM
10

I think he should be able to counter sue her for frivolous legal wrangling. The legal term for that is "abuse of process".
/r/MensRights25/10/12 12:59 PM
2

Eh. I've seen male host flirt with attractive female guests, and no one seems to care.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 08:35 PM
1

Obviously, you can't break into someone's home to film them. But you can publish photos of public figures without their permission, IIRC. I'm not sure if it matters how the photographer obtained them, and either way it's still illegal for the photographer to do that.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:57 AM
1

It's not just Hogan they posted, they also posted the paparazzi pics of Kate Middleton bottomless and I believe the Prince Harry pics as well. I don't believe they had permission to post any of these peoples private moments. Legally (and, perhaps, ethically) public figures have less of an expectation of privacy than regular people. If a gossip magazine wrote something negative and untrue about me, I could sue them for libel, but a public figure would have to prove actual malice on the part of th…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 06:11 PM
1

True. I'm one of the few who likes daytime trashy TV and likes sciency stuff. Personally, the biggest entertaining change would be to have Jeremy Kyle talk that way--"We've done a drugs test on you, too. And you know what we found? Our testers were unable to reject the hypothesis that you've got drugs in your system". Seriously though, them giving more information on the lie detector test would be really good--I'm somewhat skeptical that their results can be translated into a clear yes/no all th…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:57 PM
6

Maury should be more scientific then. "in the case of 2 year old Jake, we fail to reject the hypothesis that you are the father!"
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:09 PM
1

As a general rule, for questions that begin with "can a man be required to pay child support if..." the answer is "yes". Even if the pregnancy was the result of a crime against the father, courts can (and do) require child support payments.
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:39 AM
3

Yep. Learned about it in college law class yesterday. I can't remember what it's called, but if you serve as the father or pay child support you can be forced to continue to pay even if a DNA test proves it's not yours. Whether or not this can occur varies by state.
/r/MensRights31/08/12 05:08 PM
2

I liked the line that "fraternities do this all the time". First of all, they don't--I'm in a fraternity and haven't ranked women in such a way. But even if and when that occurs, they don't put it on the fucking Internet.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 02:34 AM
2

That's definitely part of it, but that's what I was talking about in the second sentence. However, some of the most dangerous jobs to require physical strength, excluding anyone based on size regardless of gender. Of the 10 most dangerous jobs here, several of them require physical strength, such as fishing, logging, firefighting, garbage collection, and roofing. edit: Others in the list, such as trucking, are probably due to men and women looking for different things in a job, as you said.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 03:02 PM
6

These make me laugh. I need feminism because abortion would not be a moral issue if men could get pregnant [too]. Yes, because no women oppose abortion. facepalm I need feminism because i’m entitled to feel safe walking down the street Because that never happens to men. I need feminism because when I say I don’t want marriage and babies people tell me that I will. I need men's rights because people think I'm crazy for not wanting to be single.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 02:52 PM
3

Damn that was good. A couple notes: I need men's rights because I earned my accomplishments; they were not given to me by a fictitious masculine conspiracy. This is a big problem for society. I feel like any accomplishment can be chalked up to either someone being a member of a so-called "advantaged group" (male, non-minority) or having affirmative action in their favor. I need men's rights because women assume it's my fault if I am assaulted by a woman. Part of the problem is that men think tha…
/r/MensRights31/07/12 02:46 PM
1

I haven't really seen the cheating double standard personally, though it could sell exist. The jealousy acceptability does definitely occur, but the difference is in how acceptable it is, not in the feeling itself.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 12:13 PM
8

True, but it should be pointed out that jealousy is also a very strong male drive.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 07:25 PM
51

I'll conveniently ignore that a bunch of men in my neighborhood were mugged by a group of youths who were mostly female
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:55 PM
185

TIL only women are threatened by violence, which is only perpetrated by men.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 05:10 PM
2

So it seems.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 01:07 AM
37

Why exactly was this in /r/atheism?
/r/MensRights16/07/12 10:42 PM
3

Something I've always found sociologically interesting is that my mom, a housewife, manages the family's money. Essentially, she's in charge of the family (for most things outside financial planning too), and my dad brings home paychecks. It's a bizarre feminist take on being a homemaker.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 02:45 PM
2

Think about how miserable she's making you feel. Regardless of whose fault it is, if you're feeling like this, you shouldn't be with her. If she tries to dissuade you, think about how deciding to not break up in the past has ended up poorly.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 03:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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