TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gottachoosesomethin Archive

View 0 posts and 20 comments by gottachoosesomethin 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)
5

Problem is tonnes of people have been banned for way milder stuff that were also jokes.
/r/MensRights24/05/20 08:45 PM
1

I made a simple point "that's not what it says" in response to OP's title. That's it. Now either the material does say it is illegal, or it doesn't. It's quite simple. It's important to be able to speak truthfully, and if you cant acknowledge what i said is correct then you are either not thinkingnclearly or are ideologically posessed to such a degree that you cannot acknowledge a simple reality that is staring you in the face - just like a feminists do. While I agree with the sentiments express…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 09:14 PM
2

Agree with all that, still doesnt make the OPs title accurate. Op claims it is illegal to adopt a female as a single male. Their linked material secion 4.2 says you can if you are the father, or if there are special circumstances. 4.4 says if someone was granted adoption contrary to 4.1-3 it is still a valid adoption, but it may be overturned by a court. None of that supports their claim, it instead contradicts it.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 08:14 AM
2

Depends if they define anus and/or mouth to be genitalia, and what they define penis as.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 04:00 AM
0

Meet the "special circumstances" criteria.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 03:57 AM
1

So you dont agree then that: in the picture provided, the highlighted section 4.2, allows for a single male to adopt a female child? Or that section 4.4 says that an adoption order made in contravention of the regulations above will still be valid but may be overturned by a court? In other words, in those circumstances it is legal, and thus not illegal, contradicting the title of the post.
/r/MensRights06/02/20 03:51 AM
1

I dont see why this is so hard for you. Even in the document it specifies 2 situations where adoption shall be granted - thus it is not illegal. It is illegal except for when it's legal, just like everything else. There are also restrictions on single females and regular nuclear families, which means it is also illegal for them to adopt except in circumstances where it is legal. Further, Legal and Illegal are not dichotomies - there is a third category of Alegal. As such, the title does not matc…
/r/MensRights06/02/20 01:30 AM
0

You prohibit things by having punishments associated with doing those things. If there is no punishment, there is no prohibition. Though words like "crime" and "criminal" are nebulous terms without a universally recognised meaning, it is typically considered to be a category of illegal things. There are illegal things that arent criminal, but there arent criminal things that are legal. It is not illegal for a single male to adopt a female child, but there are restrictions on when other people ca…
/r/MensRights05/02/20 11:32 PM
0

No, illegal things carry punishments. If it was "illegal for a single male to adopt a female" then those single males would face lawful punishment when it happens. The linked material says they can adopt if the father, or in "special circumstances" as you point out, so there are already exceptions to it being supposedly "illegal". The material linked relates to restrictions on the granting of adoption - the people granting the adoption are not allowed to grant to single males that dont meet the …
/r/MensRights05/02/20 11:10 PM
2

Or that there are special circumstances... Also, Illegal things carry punishments. This is a restriction. Im not saying i support what it says, or that indomt, just pointing out that what has been provided doesmt constitite illegal.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 10:30 PM
-2

Thats not what it says.
/r/MensRights05/02/20 01:54 PM
1

I think feminism largely is a completed project (and one that was worthwhile), absent some small fringe issues which will knock themselves over soon. It sounds like however you havent much tangled with the "all heterosexual sex is rape" or the "all penis in vagina sex is rape" crowd. The core of their argument is that motherhood and pregnancy are not good things, are oppressive, and cannot be desirable by a right thinking person due to a variety of 'harms' that 'could' befall a woman - like havi…
/r/MensRights22/01/20 08:44 PM
1

No, an explicit acknowledgement that they consider pregnancy and by extension motherhood as bad, as something that is inflicted upon women, as somethimg that ipso facto cant be desirable. If it was just STDs in their harm dimension then the argument would cut both ways and thus undermine itself.
/r/MensRights22/01/20 03:12 AM
4

"If your body’s fluids have the potential to harm your partner, it's your responsibility, not your partner's, to ensure they don't." Everything has the potential to harm everyone. I suspect by harm here its meant "get pregnant"? Although setting it up as the crux of the essay the author fails to even set foot in that realm let alone let alone substantiate it.
/r/MensRights17/01/20 08:32 PM
1

Isn't that what the "earn" part means?
/r/MensRights07/10/19 02:11 AM
1

Positive discrimination for one group is negative discrimination against another.
/r/MensRights30/08/19 10:03 PM
6

Mansplaining does not shame gender, and isn't targeted at a sepcific gender? Really?
/r/MensRights17/03/19 07:08 PM
4

Your reply was unsolicited.
/r/MensRights17/03/19 06:56 PM
14

Some women say they like being choked
/r/TheRedPill10/07/18 01:43 PM
44

Not gonna happen. Polygamy will happen before that.
/r/TheRedPill03/03/18 10:02 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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