TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

harry_lagman88 Archive

View 0 posts and 14 comments by harry_lagman88 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

Yes, there will be malicious types who make sure anyone (who knows or is getting friendly with this person) knows about the allegation. Even if he moves away, people will try to make sure the accusation follows him about. If there are laws designed to cover reputational damage, they really ought to cover this sort of thing. (it's all very well saying you;ll find who your real friends are but many people have only a few real friends and many acquaintances - with who they're on perfectly good term…
/r/MensRights26/12/15 09:03 AM
1

I generally take the view that we shouldn't limit a freedom unless absolutely necessary. More care should thus be taken when extending laws relating to "assault" You do not have the right to punch me, spit on me, hit a plate out of my hand, or squirt water at me.....Do you think there should be no consequences for those actions? You lump together 4 quite different things, in my view. Most people's intuitive idea of assault/battery is closely akin to physical assault sufficient to cause physical …
/r/MensRights08/11/15 10:55 PM
1

I don;t think they were married - but it's odd that she "just happened" to have a recording device working at the time. I've heard stories of people deliberately winding up enemies and artfully using phones to record the resulting bad behaviour. Perhaps one day the law will be able to punish such provocation..?
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:27 PM
1

OK so unsurprisingly the law has a different definition of assault from the one ordinary people use. The question is: should the law (& public money) really be used to punish someone for squirting a water pistol at someone else? If a US jurisdiction wants to - it's no reason why we should be so ridiculous. The law could be extended to make quite a few things to be "assault" if it simply makes up it's own definition. One could plausibly argue that it is not sensible to extend the legal definition…
/r/MensRights08/11/15 09:22 PM
2

this is 100% true Really? A victim of assault? This case isn't just a gender issue (though it is - big time), nor is is yet another example of how stupid judges can be. It's a ridiculous, dangerously authoritarian interpretation of "assault". It is not anyone's intuitive idea of assault - and neither should it be in the legal definition either. It is against everything the I think the British legal system should stand for - and once thought it did
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:42 PM
1

This can't be serious.. OK well we've now got ammunition against feminism for the rest of our lives - proof that women are unduly cossetted and men are unfairly discriminated against by the law. Somebody has got to do a petition to overturn this...?
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:35 PM
3

The thing about Jess Phillips is that she's already a politician - basically her job consists of being able to hold completely contradictory thoughts in her head and still function. ..and I dare say she has some skill at it. She's a politician - I don't trust politicians. She thinks - first of all - that implying that anti-feminists hate women (you'll notice she doesn't say anything explicitly, but has to do so in a roundabout way) is a clever political move. Of secondary importance to that: she…
/r/MensRights30/10/15 10:46 PM
1

So what happened? Did you get a totally different reaction - showing people's double-standards?
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:25 PM
1

I agree. It's a weak argument - it doesn't seem to be effective, partly because we say it over and over again. Whatever happens, I suspect we will (for some time into the future) be searching for different ways of saying the same thing, namely: "Surprise - person advocating 'equality' advocates double standards 2 minutes later"
/r/MensRights29/10/15 10:22 PM
4

I think we just have to spread the word clearly. Keep the message simple - show what is being censored. Eventually politicians might take notice. I think the freedom of speech and censorship issues are why what we're doing is important
/r/MensRights18/10/15 02:24 PM
1

Funny - but sort of adding to the craziness
/r/MensRights18/10/15 02:21 PM
1

Yes it does feel a bit relentless
/r/MensRights18/10/15 02:18 PM
7

Well I think this is a very important point. The hardest thing to do - but absolutely vital - is to ask how did these guys get the way they are? The answer is never going to be simple (and will of course be at least slightly different in every individual case). I do believe that we men do have more potential for violence than women. This does not mean that men should all feel guilty for being male, but it does mean that society MUST have at it's core a way of growing up for men that channels the…
/r/MensRights03/10/15 04:54 PM
2

As a father who tries to spend as much time as possible with my kids (and my career allows this more that for most guys), I found that babies can still be VERY clingy with their mums. Life can get quite difficult if you try to impose equality of dad-time. Plus there's the question of the mother's and father's hormonal make-up probably making it more feasible for the mother to spend so much time with the baby. In reality, couples find what works for them - what you're saying is a tad theoretical …
/r/MensRights03/10/15 05:20 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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