TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

harryspotter Archive

View 0 posts and 45 comments by harryspotter 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)
2

But if you want the law and people around you to believe that a person committed a crime against you, then there needs to be evidence. Rape is a hefty accusation. You can't expect society to just take your word for it that someone raped you.
/r/MensRights03/03/13 10:49 PM
2

Every single one of the protestors identifies themselves as a feminist and is protesting because of feminist ideology.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 09:22 PM
14

How do SRSers rationalize criticizing others for needing an "echo chamber" while banning any dissent within their own subreddit? You're a fragile child.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:40 PM
25

Just read up on that case. It was dismissed, but nothing will happen to the sick DA who went after the six-year-old in the first place. http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/judge-again-dismisses-suit-by-parents-of-boy-accused-of/article_32bfea30-ddbe-11e1-8a64-0019bb2963f4.html
/r/MensRights10/01/13 05:17 AM
1

Also, it's not your business what you think good health is. It's between a person, and his or her doctor. Unless you want to pay for it out of your own pocket, it's between you, your doctor, and your insurance company (which also effects the rates of everyone under that insurance). But see, you don't just want to leave it between the three of you. You want to appeal to the government to force insurance companies to cover contraceptives. That isn't right. As long as condoms are cheap and availabl…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 04:46 AM
2

And I have no problem with this. I'm not against an insurance company covering contraceptives; I'm against a law that forces them to cover contraceptives, seeing that condoms are cheap and widely available.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 03:50 AM
1

You should file an appeal if you haven't already. Usually you can file a couple different levels of appeals.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 12:32 AM
-1

Having to diagnose and confirm every case of menstrual cramps and bad PMS, migraines etc would just incur extra costs on the system. Isn't that like asking your insurance to cover Aspirin without a prescription? Generally they aren't going to do that.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:57 PM
6

That shouldn't mean that it should automatically be covered across the board. If you have a legitimate medical concern, then insurance should cover it. But health insurance isn't some money bank where you can get any drug you want if someone, somewhere is using it to treat their condition.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:44 PM
0

Are you serious? That was what the whole Sandra Fluke controversy was about. Her stance was that it should be compulsory for insurance companies to cover the birth control pill as a contraceptive.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 06:20 PM
1

No, because condoms are cheap and widely available. If that wasn't the case, then, sure, the government can step in and provide some cheap birth control.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 05:37 PM
-1

No, it's saying that the inherent value of something doesn't change on the basis of your opinion of it. Doubly so when we're dealing with human life.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:27 PM
-4

IT IS THE BUSINESS OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY. STOP BEING IGNORANT. Insurances WILL pay for birth control if it's medically necessary, but they don't always pay for it if it's just as contraceptive. Don't like it? Don't think it's their business? Then pay for it yourself.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:25 PM
1

I'd support a law requiring the coverage of IUDs before I supported a law requiring the coverage of the pill. There's less hypocrisy in that. I'm entitled to have my insurance cover medicine that keeps me in good health! Sure. Having sex is part of good health! Bit of a stretch, but okay. Having pregnancy-free sex is also part of good health. I don't think that's the case, but I guess that's fine. Also, condom-free, pregnancy-free sex using the birth control of my choosing is part of good health…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:23 PM
-2

That's an incredibly dim view on human life.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:20 PM
-4

So, insurance companies should stop covering quit-smoking medications, and most allergy medications, and so on, then. No. And I never said that insurance companies should not cover birth control pills. However, I'm against a law requiring them to cover birth control pills (or ED meds) or government assistance for the birth control pill. She's paying for insurance. She's paying for her own birth control. Again, no one is campaigning to take away coverage for birth control pills. Rather, people ar…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:18 PM
2

The line you're drawing seems arbitrary. I don't see how you're saying that condoms aren't effective, but birth control pills are, especially when there are better contraceptives than the pill. 15% (according to wikipedia) is unacceptable, but 8% is fine?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:13 PM
1

And according to wikipedia, a hormone IUD is 40 times as effective as the pill. Why is the pill acceptable, but condoms aren't?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:10 PM
-8

But then where do you draw the line for what is medical "enough"? . . . when a doctor says you absolutely need it. This type of thing is fairly common. A doctor will prescribe a medication, insurance will want to pay for a cheaper alternative, and then doctor will insist in writing that the original prescription is necessary. There is literally no reason not to Why should I pay for birth control pills so people don't have to use condoms? You don't like people having sex? I don't like people feel…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 04:07 PM
2

I wasn't talking about birth control pills. I was talking about condoms.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:52 PM
-2

They're often used for medical reasons for adult women, as well. And nearly all insurances will cover it for that reason. And if you told me, "I want to pass a law forcing all insurances to cover birth control pills for medical reasons", I'd support you. But we shouldn't have a law that requires insurance companies to cover birth control pills as just a contraceptive.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:18 PM
-2

significantly Let's not get crazy now. If you're going to call that "significantly" more effective, then an IUD is "significantly" more effective than the birth control pill. It's absurd to say, "Well, condoms aren't effective, but birth control pills are", when neither is 100% effective and there are more reliable contraceptives other than the pill.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:17 PM
2

By X, I meant birth control pill coverage for medically necessary reasons. By Y, I meant birth control pill coverage as a contraceptive alone. Birth control pills should be covered if you have a medical need. However, there should not be a law forcing insurance companies to cover either birth control pills as a contraceptive or ED medication.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:12 PM
-5

But, but, no one NEEDS help. They're not helping you to control when to have a baby. They're helping you to have condom-free sex. It seems arrogant to me that people feel they're entitled to have the government pay for birth control just because they don't want to use condoms.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:56 PM
6

Because I hate this type of argument. I don't know what the correct term is, but it's like a rider in a piece of legislation. Because we need X, we also need Y. No. Just because we need X does NOT mean we also need Y.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:50 PM
-1

You're insurance doesn't cover birth control pills for your condition? Have you tried getting prior authorization from your doctor? Filing an appeal if they rejected that? I'd definitely be in favor of passing a law that forced insurances to cover birth control pills for these types of situations.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:48 PM
-5

I see. So in the UK, no one minds the idea that they're paying because some people think they're entitled to not have to use condoms?
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:46 PM
2

Stop downvoting him, jackass. You can have sex at any income level, but life doesn't owe you pregnancy-free sex. Regardless, you can have pregnancy free sex at any income level using condoms.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:46 PM
-6

State funded birth control will start being a good thing when condoms stop being cheap.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:45 PM
7

I have no problem paying for birth control as the results show lower unwanted pregnancies. Why? Condoms are dirt cheap.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:42 PM
-4

Why would you argue against that? Because contraceptives are widely available at negligible prices without insurance companies covering birth control.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:42 PM
-10

A pregnancy is not an illness. There is no economic need for birth control pills to be covered when condoms are cheap. No one is saying that men or women should or shouldn't have their Viagra or birth control pills covered. We're saying that there shouldn't be a law forcing insurances to cover them. A good insurance company should cover these, but not by law.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:41 PM
0

I do think women should get taxpayer funded birth control, because it is simply a good idea. Taxpayers should start paying for birth control when condoms stop being dirt cheap.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:39 PM
2

No, no, no, no, no. Stop it. That is piss poor logic that has no place in human society. If you call up your insurance and say, "Hey, I have a medical condition that requires me to take this birth control pill", they'll say "Get it in writing, and we'll cover it." Birth control pills SHOULD be covered if you have a medical condition they treat. However, insurance companies should not be compelled by law to cover them just as contraceptives.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:38 PM
7

Here it is, over and over again: THERE IS NO LAW THAT GRANTS COVERAGE FOR ED MEDICATIONS. SOME INSURANCE COMPANIES CHOOSE TO COVER IT, WHILE OTHERS DON'T. FEMINISTS WANT A LAW FORCING INSURANCES TO COVER BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ALL THE TIME BUT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS TREAT MANY DIFFERENT THINGS! NEARLY ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL COVER BIRTH CONTROL PILLS IF THERE IS A MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AND ANYWAY, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A LAW FORCING THEM TO COVER BIRTH CONTROL PILLS FOR MEDICALLY NECESSARY PURPOSE…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:36 PM
4

I think the point is less that the boy should be in the spotlight and rather that it's strange that a prepubescent girl is getting so much attention for dominating prepubescent boys. It's not like mixed gender sports are rare for children of that age. Boys and girls play in soccer leagues together. I agree that this isn't something to get worked up about, though.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:17 AM
6

So if the reaction was dialed down, would you acknowledge the point? I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Are you saying that this is insane because we're overreacting, or do you disagree with the underlying point that there's a double standard altogether?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:57 AM
8

Can you explain how?
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:40 AM
1

Arguing for pro-life on reddit is like trying to fight the tide, isn't it? Reddit simply can't wrap its head around the idea that some people might see an unborn child as a life.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 01:32 PM
5

I don't see it on the sidebar, so I'm guessing the "misandry doesn't exist" side won?
/r/MensRights02/09/12 08:44 PM
3

You don't get it, do you? He wouldn't be embarrassed; you would. If the guy was giving a lecture in an academic crowd and misused "per se", no one is going to give a damn. They would think less of you, however, for raising your hand and angrily pointing it out, completely out of context of what the seminar is about. This is exactly why you're playing into an archetype that's been mocked for ages. You're the person who can't see past the surface. You're living in a box. Your observations are irre…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:51 PM
10

Your conclusion is wrong. per se is not elevated speech. It's something the average person uses all the time. The author is writing the way he talks, which is fine. We all understood what he meant. Grammar Nazis need to get it through their heads that we're not in an academic setting. This isn't a school, and it isn't a work place. We type something up and then hit submit. You don't get points for pointing out our mistakes, because we never had any intention of correcting them in the first place…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 08:12 PM
10

Oh shut the hell up. I'm sick of grammar nazi kids like you getting upvoted for spewing irrelevant garbage. I don't know what literature classes your college had, but in mine, we were taught grammar and the meaning of language. We learned that intelligent people have been making fun of people like you for hundreds of years. You're like Catherine Bennet from Pride and Prejudice, making some asinine, superficial comment about the language of a work, that shows no understanding of the content or me…
/r/MensRights28/05/12 07:38 PM
0

You're incorrect. Skepticism here is not rational. In fact, it's anti intellectual. Science is not based on skepticism, but empiricism. You can't deny evidence based on your gut and say that that's rationality.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 08:47 PM
-7

I'm sorry, what? Skepticism of a criminal confession is absurd in any context, unless there is strong evidence that casts it into doubt.
/r/MensRights22/05/12 01:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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