TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

googergeiger Archive

View 0 posts and 11 comments by googergeiger 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

/r/mensrights is actually /r/misogyny, but they can't have that name because it's already being used for weird porn pics and fantasy stories.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 08:41 AM
1

Go fuck yourself. Well, I guess you got me there. Well argued, my friend.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 05:03 PM
-7

Does the OP see a problem here? “Because there is no prenup, Camille was certain she'd get up to $50 million, because she's a partner in his TV company and entitled to half the money he made from shows, including 'Frasier,' while they were married.” Seems pretty straightforward to me. Married to the guy for 14 years, partner in his company, by his side while most of his fortune poured in. She's entitled to half.
/r/MensRights30/12/10 04:45 PM
0

If you read my comments, you really should understand this by now. I'm not going to say any more after this, because I'm just repeating myself. Judges aren't being told to go easier on women, despite what the Telegraph headline says. The only reading of the headline that doesn't make it an out-an-out lie is "Judges told 'be more lenient on women than you are currently being, because right now things are unequal'." And the reason things are unequal is that those three mitigating factors aren't be…
/r/MensRights12/09/10 11:52 PM
0

I'll quote from myself: The JSB is advising judges to bear in mind (1) "mental health or educational difficulties", (2) "parenting responsibilities" and (3) the level of violence associated with a crime when making a decision. You think these things should not be taken into account in such cases where they exist? A man with mental health or educational difficulties should be sentenced exactly the same as a man without them? Because that's what you're saying here.
/r/MensRights12/09/10 11:27 PM
3

I honestly don't know how to reply to this. The leap you've made here is astounding. No one has said that men turn evil, ever. And no one has said that women act according to outside factors. Please, stop with the crazy. The only thing being said is that the three mitigating factors mentioned in the article need to be taken into account in such cases as they exist. If a woman is tried and none of those factors are present in her case, fine, they obviously can't be taken into account. If a man is…
/r/MensRights12/09/10 07:13 AM
2

No evidence of that is given in the article, but it doesn't matter. The only thing that's being advised is that those three mitigating factors be taken into account when making a sentencing decision, for anyone, regardless of gender. It doesn't matter if men or women have a greater rates of those mitigating factors. It only matters that those factors are taken into account in cases where they exist. That's it.
/r/MensRights12/09/10 04:22 AM
3

I just read through the comments, trying to find someone who actually understood the content of the article. I couldn't find one. Was it there and I missed it? The JSB is advising judges to bear in mind (1) "mental health or educational difficulties", (2) "parenting responsibilities" and (3) the level of violence associated with a crime when making a decision. That's all it's doing. It's telling them to bear these things in mind when making a decision - for everyone. This is not groundbreaking o…
/r/MensRights12/09/10 02:51 AM
2

Re: the statistics on sexual offences, see my response to Slicknasty. I do have to wonder where your "17 times more likely" statistic came from though. Going by FBI crime data and US census data from 2008, a black person in the US is 6.75 times more likely to commit murder than a white person. Granted, this is still something worth talking about, but it's definitely worth getting right. (I can include the exact figures if you want to see them.) In answer to your question, I think anti-violence c…
/r/MensRights10/08/10 12:14 AM
2

I got the 98% from Wikipedia's article on 'Rape By Gender', but Wikipedia isn't great source. Here's a better one (source is http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r169/r169-eng.shtml#13): "It is clear that sexual offending is much more common among males than females. Compared to male offenders, results from this review indicate that women commit sexual offences at a ratio of approximately 1 to 20 based on both official reports and victimization surveys. In our review, the comparison betwe…
/r/MensRights09/08/10 11:41 PM
0

If there's a community with a very high murder rate, it makes perfect sense to run anti-violence campaigns within that community. In this case, if we look at the community as "men", it makes perfect sense to make ads educating that community about rape. Males are responsible for 98% of all sexual offences, so it's hard not to see it as a group that needs to be targeted for education about sexual violence.
/r/MensRights09/08/10 07:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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