TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

hyperkron Archive

View 5 posts and 140 comments by hyperkron on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

and it is I, MayaMordle, who will decide what this comic is about!
/r/MensRights25/10/18 10:05 PM
3

Much is made of female happiness being stay at home wives, but it isn’t controlled for income, which is a significant factor in happiness. Rich people report higher level of happiness. Not groundbreaking. In the US dual income households make on average $102,400, while families with stay at home wives only make $55,000 per year (Link to Pew). So wives that work in addition to the husband increase the income of the family (no surprise). Still, stay at home wives report higher levels of happiness …
/r/MensRights03/07/18 10:48 AM
18

A quick check on the statistical power of these numbers: The difference between men and women being threatend to have private photos exposed online are statistically significant (p = 0.02). The difference for having these threats carried out is even highly statistically significant (p = 0.009). So from this point of view the numbers are relatively convincing. However. One first has to bear in mind that with polls like these typically use a sample size of around 1000 (1182 in this case). This imp…
/r/MensRights21/08/15 10:11 AM
1

I dont get why you get so many downvotes. It seems to me that a change in policy for DV help lines in between the blog and now is crucial information. Thus, you are contributing to the discussion and I appreciate your extra information. I agree with most cricitcal commenters that you are going to far labeling the old data is as "meaningless." Policies may change over night but attitudes for sure dont. But one can disagree while still seeing the merit in your contribution.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:42 PM
10

who among us hasn't had a daydream of going on a rampage and wiping out a third of the male population, AMIRITE All the non-psychopathic women?
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:27 PM
1

Take the theory of relativity as an example, which would not have resulted from using Bayesian inference regardless of how many times one added the changed hypothesis to the original list of hypothesis But you can add the theory of relativity to your hypotheses and do a Bayesian analysis then. The result will be that the hypothesis of relativity is more likely to be true than its competing hypotheses. Btw: Is your point of contention that Bayesian inference does not give you a way to come up wit…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 01:13 PM
1

By 'confirm' I mean show beyond reasonable doubt, not just accept as a possible situation consistent with the data. Situation? What situation? Do you mean the hypothesis? And accepting? Do you mean acknowledging the consistency of the hypothesis with the data? I am sorry but I have a very hard time following your thoughts. If I understood you correctly then that would be a false dichotomy and inconsistent with what I said. I always referred to the evidence raising the probability of the hypothes…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 11:26 AM
1

I never supported alimony with one word. You are seeing things.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 11:10 AM
0

I hope you will leave this community as soon as possible
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:51 AM
1

I don't care. How welcoming and overly stereotypical.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:50 AM
1

I'm sorry, It seems I've misinterpreted the implications of the original post. However, these results could still happen with a) and b) being true - nothing about the post confirms that a) and b) are the cause of the results. Sorry, but you have a weird way of using epistemological words. It depends on what you mean by "confirm." The evidence presented raises the confidence in (or probability of) the hypothesis that false accusation are more frequent in rape cases than in other crimes. Yeah, go …
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:49 AM
1

That's absolutely preferable to them spending it wholly as they wish. Throw in the democrats, anti-gun rights groups, and communist political parties while you're at it Surprising. No, they don't. In the US, courts cannot order a payment to a charity, they do accept it occasionally, as a partial penalty in civil court in a negotiated settlement. This is family court, not civil court, and no such order would be permissible. The world is a bit larger than the US, you know. In some countries courts…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:40 AM
1

So alimony on the condition of slapping you is indeed preferable over alimony without any condition. Good we sorted that out. The fault isn't my premise, it's your presumption that I care when they can't fulfill the requirement. How about: alimony on the condition that each alimony receiver should sent 0.1% of the money to a feminist organization? This is clearly an accomplishable condition and people are ordered by courts to give money to charity all the time.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:11 AM
1

Exactly, so the claims (cited in OPs original post) that false accusation of rape is the only deductible explanation for this data are jumping to conclusions WAY too soon. You mean this claim: "Would you expect this if a) false rape accusations happen rarely and b) with the same frequency as with other crimes? Probably not."? I never made the claim that the only explanation is that false rape accusations happen with a higher frequency in rape cases than with any other crime. You reading somethin…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 09:05 AM
1

No, logic does not rely on fantasies that will not happen. Logic deals with the validity of conclusions from their premises. If the premises lead to something that you would call fantasies then this shows an error in the premises - not with logic. "Alimony on the condition to set off a nuclear bomb is preferable over alimony without any condition. True or untrue?" According to you: yes, because "setting off a nuclear bomb" falls under the category "any condition." The fault is in your premise. T…
/r/MensRights19/08/15 08:58 AM
1

I was saying that because only 5-10% of all criminal cases involve biological evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing, its important to look at what the base rate of types of crime are in those 5-10%. No. You were saying: "Part of this is that a vast majority of sex crimes are convicted using DNA." But maybe you just misspoke the first time. Of rape, murder and violence, rape involves the most body to body contact, will involve more potential for usable DNA evidence and will therefore fa…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 04:10 PM
3

I dont follow you. Are you saying that people are first convicted with DNA evidence and later exonerated by the exact same DNA evidence? That only makes sense to me if the DNA evidence is used incorrectly at least one of the times. But then DNA evidence would not be very convincing and would for sure not be helpful exonerating innocent people. In fact, in the list of causes for wrongful convictions incorrect usage of DNA evidence does not even occur. It seems to me that the innocence project foc…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 03:33 PM
-1

This game is called logic and if you do not want to accept the logical implications of what you are saying that is on you. edit: deleted some overly hostile part.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 01:04 PM
4

Good catch!
/r/MensRights18/08/15 11:41 AM
7

The Innocent Project aims at exonerating falsely convicted inmates. A whopping 70% of all exonerations by DNA were for sex related crimes. Would you expect this if a) false rape accusations happen rarely and b) with the same frequency as with other crimes? Probably not.
/r/MensRights18/08/15 10:56 AM
-1

Alimony on the condition to punch you is preferable over alimony without any condition. True or untrue?
/r/MensRights18/08/15 09:00 AM
-2

You're down a path of idiocy. Courts cannot order somebody to break the law, and that's what assault is. That is besides the point. The point was that according to your absolutes the following statement is true: Alimony on the condition to punch you is preferable over alimony without any condition. It is implied by what you were saying. I just follow the logical conclusion of what you are premises. Alimony should not exist in any form, and any restriction on alimony is better than no restriction…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 05:10 PM
-2

That's not accordingly. That's some pathetic leftist fantasy where I'd have to take the abuse without response. I absolutely would respond, and nobody would slap me a second day. But this law would still be a step in the right direction according to your absolute statement in the beginning, right? I hope that you see that my point of contention is not the unfairness of alimony or that I want to see you slapped. I only try to show you that the use of absolute statements in ethics may very well le…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 03:44 PM
-7

I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly. Praise this law because it is a step in the right direction?
/r/MensRights17/08/15 12:52 PM
-11

Alimony is unfair treatment, it is never unfair to put conditions on it, no matter what the conditions are. The better option is always complete elimination. Any condition is better than none? How about every alimony receiver must slap /u/eletheros once per day? I think that you shouldnt use absolute statements like that. Ethics is the weighing of conflicting values. Defining one of those values as absolute (here: conditional alimony is always better than unconditional) leads to absurd results -…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:19 AM
16

Actually, for some reason I was able to access the article briefly. Unfortunately, didnt make a screen shot. But this is exactly what the article stated. So there you go...
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:06 AM
35

For most of the last 20 years, it has been largely impossible to get mainstream media to take notice of the systemic disadvantages and inequalities for boys in education Thank you Neil Lyndon for trying to fix that. The ratio between male and female university graduates has long passed alarming levels. For example, almost twice as many women than men graduate in Australia.. When the gender gap was the other way around it was taken as compelling evidence for discrimination against women. Now, the…
/r/MensRights17/08/15 11:05 AM
0

This is my own theory In order to be pedantic: you mean hypothesis. Please let us not make the same mistakes as it is common with Feminists, where "theory" means unfalsifiable speculation or even ideology. Lets use terms in their most rigorous scientific definition.
/r/MensRights17/08/15 10:09 AM
9

Unfortunately, this study was done with rats: While the study was done in rats, [...] "We don’t know whether this finding will translate to humans or not" but it is for sure an interesting and additional piece of evidence for the hypothesis that at least some of the observed differences between men and women are due to biology. Here, it is even down to the molecular level, where it seems that male and female versions of specific molecules interact differently with a drug. This would seem to sugg…
/r/MensRights13/08/15 09:35 AM
2

Thanks for the links. I would take "man flu" to mean that men have more severe symptoms than women from the same disease. However, in both links reference to women's immune response to be more "robust" or "stronger", which does not necessarily translates to men have more severe symptoms. It could also mean that the duration of the diseases are shorter, while the severity of the symptoms (e.g., fever) is the same. It could also mean that the complication rate is lower for women, which could mean …
/r/MensRights12/08/15 11:39 AM
5

Are you aware that my google results will differ from yours? My first result includes the following passage: There's nothing in the medical literature to back up any difference in men's and women's colds, says William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist and chairman of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. So this is not exactly in line with your assertion I am afraid. I looked at 4 more results and see a problem with an exact definition of "man flu". I take i…
/r/MensRights12/08/15 11:32 AM
2

Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 09:00 AM
3

I was just an object. I was no better than all the hundreds of other unsuspecting women he had slept with. Finally, I understand the word objectification: a woman treated not better than other women.
/r/MensRights16/03/15 12:38 PM
1

No, lack of distress does not mean consent. That is not what I argued for.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 10:17 AM
2

It just seems like even accepting it as evidence could set a dangerous precedent which would disproportionately negatively impact those victims less likely to openly display their emotions, like men. It is evidence whether you accept it or not. However, I only demonstrated the direction this evidence will lean to. I - on purpose - did not say anything about the magnitude of that evidence. Using real world numbers it could very well turn out to be extremely weak evidence that has an infinitesimal…
/r/MensRights15/03/15 02:17 AM
1

Do you know male rape victims of female attackers? I've only spoken with 3, so maybe this is anecdotal, but most seem to not hold the attacker accountable and therefore may resume a normal relationship or friendship with them. This is not evidence that they consented, just evidence that, for whatever reason, they did not blame the rapist. One guy who was date raped said "I think she thought she was doing me a favor", and another said "That was wrong, but she's a really good mother." I think you …
/r/MensRights15/03/15 02:04 AM
3

You made up these numbers. How do you expect this post to be taken seriously? First, the actual numbers are irrelevant. I just need to premises to reach the same conclusion: people are more likely to show signs of distress after non-consensual sex than after consensual sex non-consensual sex happens less frequently than consensual sex. Second, the actual numbers are merely charitable interpretations of those two premises -- meaning that I expect them to be skewed towards the conclusion in realit…
/r/MensRights14/03/15 09:25 PM
10

If we take /u/Dnile1000BC statement as a being part of the mra discourse then there is no need to be an expert for him/her to state this. You are using the discourse of "needing to be an expert on a subject" to speak with authority. Yet you are demanding proof while not providing proof your own discourse. You are trying to define who can speak what about feminist discourse. That is silencing, isnt? The OP's link proofs that merely stating facts is part of the feminist discourse. Interpreting /u/…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 12:49 PM
1

First the lead author of a recent study purportedly showing that one in three men would rape if they could get away with it Then that 13.6 percent of respondents (9 guys) actually said they would rape if there were no consequences The problem is in the word "consequences". In the reported interpretation of the study it is used in the specific meaning of "no personal legal consequences but it seems that in the study itself its used way more general and ambiguous. Here, the word could been interpr…
/r/MensRights15/01/15 11:14 AM
2

But again, you are ignoring my idea that both parents should have to give up the child in order for either parent to be able to give up the child. If I may interject... There seem to be some rather severe consequences of that position. First, you have to be against save heaven laws as these provide the mother the opportunity to give up the child without consent or even knowledge of the father. Second, this forces the mother to always reveal the identity of the father to the state (that would be …
/r/MensRights11/01/15 01:28 PM
1

The MRM as I understand it not about denying support to the boys and girls men father, except with parental rights surrender which is not law sadly. It is a little bit hard to surrender your paternal rights if you even dont know about the child. Still the fact remains that the man in this case has a child and that does come with responsibilities to that child. This is also an argument against adoption, save heaven laws and (weirdly enough) legal paternal surrender.
/r/MensRights11/01/15 12:31 PM
1

They should be viewed in the context of a study published last year by the Crown Prosecution Service, which showed that false accusations of rape are ‘very rare’. If you just follow the link, the "study" actually showed that prosecutions of false rape claims and not false rape claims themselves happen less frequently than prosecutions of rape. I wonder why...
/r/MensRights08/01/15 02:27 PM
4

The basis of third-wave feminism (i.e modern feminism) revolves around the abolishment of set gender expectations, which includes identity. The obstacles of this are often attributed to 'the patriarchy' which is always misconstrued here as 'all men,' as if we assume that all males are privileged or actively oppressive. Even though the main bastions of the patriarchy school of thought is that a great deal of men are hurt underneath it-- the forced stoicism, the assumption that men mustprovide, th…
/r/MensRights08/04/14 04:29 PM
8

Hint for the people following the first link to the American Cancer Society. On their page they say "2 in every 3 people diagnosed with cancer today survive at least 5 years." This is a widely misleading statement, since it is prone to the lead time bias. Simply put they use the 5 year survival rate after diagnosis as an indicator for the quality of cancer care. But the 5 year survival rate after diagnosis also goes up if you just detect the cancer earlier (e.g., with screening) without improvin…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 05:59 PM
-2

Or say Hey guys
/r/MensRights27/11/13 10:21 PM
10

General and normative gender expectations in our societies are as follows: males are regarded as actors, females as being acted upon. Their worth and status in society is determined by what they do (men) or what they are (women). I would guess that almost everybody here is aware of that, since the youtube videos of girlwriteswhat are quite known and well received. Thus, we dont need to discuss this "gender theory" over and over again. The bad influence of these biases, on the other hand, are a r…
/r/MensRights27/11/13 09:58 PM
2

You have to be kidding...
/r/MensRights24/11/13 04:30 PM
4

Wait. In the US the police is allowed to lie to you?
/r/MensRights24/11/13 01:45 PM
1

Very well argued!
/r/MensRights24/11/13 10:35 AM
75

These are the rules for female allies to the cause of the MRM: 1) If somebody calls you a female ally, call him a dickhead. 2) If you call yourself a female ally, call yourself a dickhead. We don't care about your gender. We care about issues and the merits of your arguments. :) edit: formatting and forgot a
/r/MensRights24/11/13 10:16 AM
4

Now im not saying all women deserve to be "raped", but even as a women Not all but some? You are disgusting. Take your shit to somewhere else.
/r/MensRights17/11/13 11:04 AM
14

Feminist demand: Women, go for high stress career jobs! Feminist complain: Life for average women has gotten tougher. No shit, Sherlock!
/r/MensRights02/11/13 06:59 PM
1

Maybe you should talk to a friend or even an expert about these issues.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:20 PM
1

This sounds like you might have a problem. You have my sympathy.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:12 PM
2

Beating off does not constitute of domestic violence - the latter being bad and gender symmetric.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 11:59 AM
5

Domestic violance is bad and gender symmetric.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 11:52 AM
3

:)
/r/MensRights21/10/13 09:31 PM
15

If I may interject: The issue I have with the term Patriarchy is that it unnecessarily and falsly genders (yes I used it as a verb) societal views. I could quite easily demonstrate that we are actually living in a Matriarchy with the same data. Example: Forcing men to go to military to fight war for the benefit (e.g., freedom, available resources, etc.) of women. Men do the dying, women do the living. Seems pretty misandrist to me. But I dont. A much better term would be "outdated gender norms."
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:49 PM
1

Or you could start with assertion that forcing men to show no feelings puts an unjustifiable constrain onto them, leading to negative effects and thus being misandistric. This misandristic believe then necessitates the collary that women are allowed to show feelings, thus, they are constrained less... Your problem here is that you take a difference of societal views and norms about two groups and then "demonstrate" that this has a negative impact on members of group A, while the negative impact …
/r/MensRights21/10/13 05:35 PM
1

Yeah... it was quite an eye-opening and disappointing experience. However, I will continue to listen to the show anyway. :)
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:39 PM
1

I would alongside with many other atheist define atheism as and only as "not accepting god claims." To my mind this cannot qualify as a religion. And with respect to your experience of the definition of feminism: my thoughts exactly.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:36 PM
2

Semantics where you want to condescendingly define what words mean that others apply to themselves? Like in "a Christian is somebody who worships torture devices"? /s
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:14 PM
1

There's flexibility in what specific characteristics can designate, but those characteristics are still pretty well-defined. Whether you take omnipotent to mean wholly powerful or wholly powerful except in cases of logical contradiction, there's great overlap. That's simply not the same as feminism. Overlap? Sure. But it still means different things and people come to different conclusions depending on their exact personal definition. It goes such a long way that if you said you believed in God,…
/r/MensRights13/10/13 02:11 PM
3

no.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 01:41 PM
3

Nothing like a Star Wars paraphrase to jump start one's condescension. Agreed. Sure, there's variance in how we make sense of particular characteristics. The basic concept of God, however, remains the same: an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, transcendent, personal first cause of the universe. Several billion people on the planet will sign off on this definition, which is remarkable. To compare this to feminism, that's radically revolutionized and reinterpreted every deca…
/r/MensRights13/10/13 11:56 AM
3

The concept of God has remained largely the same since the days of Plato. If anything, religion serves as a great example of how concepts can retain meaning over large periods of time. The ignorance is strong in you. Even nowadays there are plenty of different God versions out there - even within the christian religion. For instance, God omnipotence sometimes mean that he can do anything he wants, sometimes it means he can do anything that doesnt violate logic, sometimes it means he can do anyth…
/r/MensRights13/10/13 11:29 AM
0

Oh... thinnly veiled condescention. Awesome. I will like it here. /not sarcasm I think that the problem lies with you not seeing the answer. You implied self-serving motives and this one can always do, thus it is a mute point and just serves to poisson the well.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 11:20 AM
1

My thoughts almost exactly. I would just propose that the guys from the reasonable doubts podcasts are much better at reasoning than the non-prophets...
/r/MensRights13/10/13 11:17 AM
5

I indicated that in my email abov.e Its more an abstract similarity of flaws in basic epistomology and tactics to get political power : ill-defined and ever changing concepts, unfalsifiable assumptions, failure to recognize the entire picutre, in-group think, shaming and shunning tactics instead of arguments, being divisive, vast variety of subgroups with mutual inconsistent positions and believes. Of course, the exact views of the groups are different.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 11:05 AM
0

It seems to me that you are using the term "government over-reach" synomynous to "wrong politcal decisions." Personally, I find the term "government over-reach" so subjective that it actually looses any meaning.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 09:30 AM
2

You mean like your comment?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:23 PM
1

Of course one should work on getting rid of in-group thinking for everybody at once. I thought that this was implied by my statement. And I actually do think that in the end the mra should work at making themselves unnecessary... So I think that we are in an agreement.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 09:48 PM
3

That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you very much.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 09:33 PM
7

I fully agree with you and the criticism you raised would be one of my first. However, I do think that a resource that gathers all these kinds of critics of infamous studies would be rather useful in debates. In order to realize the bias of the study you actually have to take the time and effort read it and understand the implications of the basic assumptions. I guess that most people on either side wouldnt bother.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 09:32 PM
2

And what would be the reason for the aliens to attack us or the other in-group to threaten us? in-group out-group thinking. Thus, the permanent solution to this problem is overcoming this bias and not indulging in it. While I agree with you that in-group thinking has its reason for existing this does not imply that it is ethically justified.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 09:28 PM
7

I think that you are taking this way to far. Hate is a strong word and should be used with care as not to hollow out its meaning. However I can understand your preference not to follow shows with him. But I will continue to listen to the shows since I do enjoy them still... Russel, being a male feminist will NOT get you laid brother. And why would you think getting laid is his prime motivation? Pseudo-macho, juvenile comments like this were really good reason for me not to associate myself with …
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:51 PM
10

Thank you very much for the warm welcome and for making me aware of the links. While they are not exactly the sites I was looking for, I think that I will post a detailed criticism of the study here and over on /r/MRRef. I think we need a wiki that collects criticism of frequently sited but fawlty studies. I dont want to deconstruct the 1 in 4 women will get raped on campus myth over and over again.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:37 PM
7

My mother told me that I was different - over and over again. :D
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:35 PM
12

The similarity between religion and feminism (as the other side of the coin) is indeed striking. I honestly believe that this warrants a deeper and more detailed maybe even academic analysis. If only I had the motivation to do so... To me the mra is in the very same place atheism was 20 years ago. If you care to listen to the latest episode of non-prophets Russel even agrees with this without realizing it. Back then atheism had such a bad rep in the US that hardly anyone wanted to associate with…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:28 PM
1

no.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 05:41 PM
1

Thank you for your well-reasoned arguments. You can rest assured that I gave them the appropriate time of consideration. Is this an example of your being nice routine? Or are you just trying to break the hypocracy wall? If so... you did - not very unexpectedly. Which seems to be quite often the case with you "I do want to persuade and I dont care about convincing" people. How about not answering and further proving my point?
/r/MensRights22/09/13 03:25 PM
1

I am allergic to bullshit. Your comment triggered. If you want to have a real discussion about how reasonable standards in discussions then get back to me.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 03:15 PM
1

So... what do i get for accurately predicting that you wont change your mind? But I really like the reasonable sounding but actually vacuous (ever changed your mind on something that you were not ready for?) background story that you came up with on the spot. Even more, you do feel comfortable enough assigning a larger than 50% probability to something that you just pulled out off your ass. Oh btw: You are of course wrong. Crap like this stop me from actually identifying with any group. Since yo…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 05:52 PM
2

No one has ever changed their minds after being presented statistics contrary to their convictions. I did a couple of times. Now according to you you shoulndt change your mind about your position since my statement is a statistics with N=1. This means you have to choose to be willfully wrong. But since you seem to have no problem with being irrational you wont have a problem with that either. Tl;dr: This banana proves you wrong.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 07:01 AM
1

I think that saying something that bears no explanatory power but poisons the well is not consistent with intellectual honesty - whether the intention was to make an argument or not.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 04:54 PM
1

Of course I presented only half of the argument with respect to the should of hinting at self-serving motives. The part that was missing goes as follows: Hinting at self-serving motives does nothing for the explanation of an action (since it can be always done) but it can be and is used to poison the well. I would say that poising the well is a rhetorical device that is incompatible with intellectual honesty. If you want to be intellectually honest you shouldnt hint at self-serving motives. I as…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 03:15 PM
1

It seems to me that there are two related yet distinct main issues here and I hope that you allow me to tackle them separately. One. Independent of whether you made an argument by implication or not, my original point was to call your attention to the fact that hinting at self-serving motives could always be done and, thus, it is a mute point bearing no information. Even if you just wanted to make a general statement you shouldnt have done this one. Two. This is concerning the question whether y…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 09:06 AM
1

First, I like to point out the irony of you constructing sinister hidden motives after I demonstrated that this is a mute point. However, I dont know whether you are actually agreeing with me or used this without realizing. Second, even If i would wanted to pat myself on the shoulder for being intellectual superior to a random internet person that I chose to answer to already knowing the flaws in the message, it wouldnt make me wrong. Third: Sentence A) We dont know whether she was actually harr…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 06:22 AM
3

Interestingly enough this depends on the culture. If you use the term corresponding to "invite" in Germany it is implied that you will pay. Otherwise you would ask if you go out and not invite.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:17 PM
1

While I would be genuinly interested in the Bayesian line of reasoning that would lead you to the conclusion that the chance of her story being correct is about 50%, I merely wanted to point out that the only reason against believing her you have strongly implied is in fact not a reason against believing her.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:08 PM
0

Just because you are able to construct self-serving intentions behind something doesnt make that something less or more likely. You could always do that, which you will now of course deny because you want to be right. See? The assertion of self-serving intentions can always be done and thus it is a mute point.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 03:44 PM
1

H: gay men are happier than straight men If H true than it is true that H is true in Montreal. H is true in Montreal. Thus, H passed this test and the updated propability of H being true must be higher than before the test. If you do not agree, then you logic wrong. If you dont care, I dont care. I cannot take you seriously nor should you be taken seriously by anyone. Also: please just read the fucking links. Your usage of the word proof indicates that you do not have the faintest idea about epi…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:38 AM
0

Someone interested in mens issues and rights, but is not a part of the MRM will likely find it unappealing. It reinforces the Us vs Them mentality that both sides seem to have. I hope not too many of your neurons commited suicide after you forced them to write this screaming contradiction. And in case you dont see it: Just grouping people in categories of MRAs and not MRAs reinforces an us vs them mentality. If you really cared about helping men you are being harmed by gender discrimination, the…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:26 AM
1

First, my comment was merely about the fact that small sample sizes in studies comparing groups to each other are not intrinsically a bad thing - contrary what you seem to imply. Second, according to Bayes you have to update your believe in the statement "all gay men are happier than all straight men" in the direction of more confidence in said statement. Otherwise you logic wrong.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:16 AM
1

So you have chosen option 1), huh? Edit: I am sorry. This level of condescension by me was a bit unwarranted. The difference between your confidence in your assertion and the truth is just so staggering... The paper I linked is about sample sizes in psychological studies and implicitely shows that small sample sizes might be the way to go if you just want to demonstrate a difference between groups. The reason is that there will always be differences between groups (and may those be in the 10th d…
/r/MensRights21/07/13 07:06 PM
4

I've had it done Wrong. It was done to you without your consent. And I'd rather have it this way than worry about infections and such. TIL about the epidemic of foreskin related infections in Europe. /s
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:24 AM
9

As a religious thing its different. How does this work exactly? "Sacrificing babys is bad." "Its part of our religion." "Oh, then... I am so sorry. I really do not want to offend you. Please continue." /s
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:21 AM
4

Well... /r/feminism immediately deleted your thread and you are asking why feminists cannot work together with the rest of us? I think that you got your answer. And... you are not surprised? Why do you pose a question that you know the answer for in the first place?
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:56 PM
5

Try searching for your comment! It has been removed. No discussion wanted there. Guess why... and sorry for this first bite of the red pill... :/
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:42 PM
2

men are socialized to be more sexually aggressive and more forward, and men tend to be larger than women A bold statement. I like to read your reasoning justifying this.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:05 AM
1

I dont understand the concept of "hard-wiredness." Please explain.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:53 PM
0

Well... I dont think that. So I would be not very very wrong according to you. But if you think that eating little children is ok then you are very very wrong.... Wait? You did not say that? I wonder how that feels... /s Edit: spelling.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 08:52 PM
1

... no. not even close. empathy is hard wired in social animals. Evidence
/r/MensRights26/06/13 06:54 PM
1

thx. already fixed.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:50 AM
8

/u/_not_forgotten never said you were an MRM or that you are subscribed to this subreddit. Either you are using a strawman to escape from the cognitive dissonance that you must experience or you seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension - neither would be an insignificant obstacle to face being a lawyer...
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:41 AM
2

values and interests are influenced by genetics: assertion, would love to hear your evidence. An example for complex behaviour encoded in genes would be the nest making drive and skill of certain birds. Since the birds dont learn to make the nests, it must be inherented (aka) genes. Those birds acquired not only the skill to produce the nests in their genes through evolution, but also the interest/motivation/instinct to do so - otherwise the skill would be useless. Thus, the psychological markup…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 08:13 AM
11

As you seem to be aware these stats are not related to your assertion that "men have far more influence over what both genders are pressured to look like than women." I think that we can agree that citing random gender stats does not help your mere assertion. In fact, your are sidestepping your assertion going from the specific "pressuring to look like" to a rather unspecific "culture dominated by men." You might have done this in the hope that if you could establish "a culture dominated by men"…
/r/MensRights29/01/13 04:00 PM
19

All I'm saying is that in western society, men have far more influence over what both genders are pressured to look like than women. You mean: You are asserting that this is the case. Please argue to the validity of your assertion.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 03:07 PM
6

Good find!
/r/MensRights09/01/13 08:26 AM
5

Because society places more demands on men. It requires them to earn more money in order to be valued the same as women. Men try to fulfill these expectations by focussing more on career then women. Some make it. Some dont. The ones that make it appear in these kinds of statistics, have more experience then women and, thus, make more money. The ones that dont either commit suicide or become homeless and dont appear in these statistics. Thus, the wage gap is actually a clear sign of descriminitat…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 03:18 PM
4

i just don't see what's wrong. [...] it delays climax, Delaying the climax could be regarded as an indication of decreased sensitivity that would in turn lead to more problems with ED. But this is of course pure speculation. If we only had a study on that. Oh wait. We have. Also: As if "delaying the climax" was inherently good... It lowers the rates of disease transmission. HIV+ Male to female infection seems to be increased for circumcised men by about 60% (p=0.3). and the majority of people ev…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 12:26 PM
1

I am not asserting. I am argueing: Premise 1) Two things that are indistinguishable are the same. Premise 2) Cherry pickers disregard certain normative Bible verses with the help of rationalizations (e.g., different time, metaphors, fulfilled law, Jesus new game etc.) Premise 3) You disregard certain normative Bible verses (rationalization: fulfilled law, not meant for Christians, etc) Conclusion a) from 2) and 3): You cannot be distinguished from a cherry picker. Conclusion b) from 1) and a): Y…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:27 PM
1

You would never have believed anything else. You have faith of a different sort. Our "beliefs" are not even close, when it comes to being justified. Heck, you actually play a different game: You cant show me that I am wrong, thus I am justified in my beliefs. Like invisible dragons or that maniac transcendental god guy. In addition, I explicitly argumented that you are a cherry picker since you cannot distingiush yourself from one. Two things that are indistinguishable are the same. This conclus…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 06:06 PM
0

There is a large difference between rationalization and faith. Indeed there is and since you seem to not understand my point let me explain it again: faith is to accept or trust an assertion without good or even contrary to evidence. A rationalization would be to give an pseudo and ad-hoc argument for an assertion in order to cover up once true beliefs :) or intentions. Since you did not provide any evidence that would distinguish you from a Bible verse cherry picker, you are in fact a Bible ver…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:07 PM
-1

If you're going to make a statement questioning someone's intelligence and beliefs, it might be prudent to spell "beliefs" properly. I thought it was a typo the first time. I did that for you. Now you have something to rub in my face... Or English just isnt my native language. One or the other. But thanks for pointing that out anyway. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "sarcasm." I tried to transport the idea that the surprise was not actually a surprise. Saying something while …
/r/MensRights03/01/13 12:49 AM
0

I don't understand this. Which points to a possible explanation for your believes. Why is it a surprise? That part was sarcasm. No. But as a Christian my view of masculinity is framed in scripture. I had been thinking about modern masculinity for a while and this is what I felt on the subject. So I posted it in what I considered a relevant subreddit. Leading a Christian life in part entails speaking to people about scripture. So I try to do that. These are the scriptures that speak on what a goo…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:28 PM
0

First, this statement is not necessarily true. Think hypocrits. Second, this is not what you have wrote. In fact your exact statement was: What I'm saying is "No person who believes that men should not be discriminated against believes that men should be discriminated against". My point is that you are either 1) defining feminism only and exaclty as "being against discriminitation of men" or 2) committed the no true scotsman fallacy... as I explained above.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 10:18 PM
0

If you did then you couldnt have claimed the tautology for the definition of the word feminism in order to avoid the justified claim that you used a no true scotsman fallacy... which my comment was about and you didnt answer to that. go figure.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 09:24 PM
-2

I believe I laid everything out in scripture so defense is not necessary. So... Spiderman exists. If the mods would like to ban me on basis of my religious beliefs they may feel free to do so. That is quite a surprise. Otherwise I'll continue my life as a Christian. So if you would have been banned you would have stopped being a Christian? Or how should i take the logical connection between the two sentences, which is implied by the usage of the word "otherwise"? Sorry if this post offended you …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 09:21 PM
0

Lastly and most importantly: Be men of GOD and lead your family to HIM. You spelled Flying Spaghetti Monster wrong. Also: Please refrain from polluting this subreddit with religious preaching. I hope that those of you who are not Christian will not pick this apart but perhaps take from it what you wish while maintaining your own beliefs. I hope that the Christians will not answer to this comment. I fear that the basis of my believes could be challanged in such a way that I am unable to defend my…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 06:48 PM
1

You have now defined feminism as "being against discrimination of men" - funnily enough. As soon as you include additional core believes of feminism, you will find persons who call themselves feminists but dont accept at least one of the core believes. You might call these people "not true feminist". So: 1) You are defining the entire feminist idiology as exactly and only "being against discrimination of men" - which is rather stupid - or 2) There are more then this core believe in feminism and …
/r/MensRights02/01/13 11:36 AM
2

If anyone on here were actually capable of reasoning about gender, they would realize that the best way to support "men's rights" is to support feminism and the disestablishment of the patriarchy. Do you care to give any supporting arguments or evidence for your mere assertions? You should at least try to demonstrate the following points, which were implied by your assertion, in order to be taken serioulsy: 1) Define "patriachy", demonstrate its existance by providing evidence and falsifying alt…
/r/MensRights29/12/12 02:51 PM
1

"Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration [...]." So I would say: yes, prison rape is included.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:09 PM
2

Sure thing, here's a survey conducted in 2003 by the US Department of Justice. See table on page 9, 19,670 male victims vs 179,170 of rape/sexual assault. This is simply one study, but all studies indicate a vast majority of victims of rape are women. Thank you very much for at least trying to back up your claims with statistics. But i am afraid that you missed the "definitions and context" part and this will turn out to be crucial. First, I applaud you for blindly choosing the US as the country…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:17 AM
2

thats idiotic.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:39 PM
1

Isnt the pill paid by insurance in the US if there is a medical indication?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:25 AM
2

9 out of 10 rape victims are female. 17.7 million women have been raped or attempted to be raped. *citation, definitions and context needed. Feminism actively fights and raises awareness for all of these. Wouldnt raising awareness of rape contribute to "rape culture" since women would be more scared? So are you saying that feminism strengthens rape culture?
/r/MensRights20/12/12 10:23 AM
3

If you dont reply to the rest of the comment, then you would do me a huge favor if you at least answer the following, since it left me utterly confused. Thanks for your thoughts, dear condescending egoist. While I may understand why you might perceive my comment as condenscending, I am really lost at finding the egoist part. Why are you calling me a egoist? I seriously dont get it. Thanks for your thoughts, dear condescending egoist. OP may have been writing sardonically, but I'm not sure sarcas…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 06:24 PM
1

Are you a chatbot?
/r/MensRights06/12/12 05:56 PM
2

TUL: Listing logical fallacies doesnt constitute an argument.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 02:47 PM
3

Ehm...The only thing I argued was that you were missing the point of the discussion, which you seem to concede. Thus, this argument is valid and since I did not argue anything else, I cannot have used those fallacies. If you disagree it would be more convincing to point them out and not simply asserting that I commited any fallacies.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:20 AM
4

But as a feminist who treads in academic circles, I have to tell you I've never heard the argument that being a man is degrading. The "/s" in OPs comment stands for "sarcasm out." He wanted to show that this kind "logic" is flawed. Funnily enough you continue with this kind of fallacious reasoning. The logic isn't, "men are fat and they suck, so if a woman is fat she is manly and therefore must also suck." It's that it's more acceptable for men to be heavy in our society. There are tons of sitco…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 08:11 AM
4

So there are other factors to take into consideration if you want a full account of physical performance than gender? Who knew? Since you are able to put out these deepities with a straight face, I propose you should apply for the position of the Dalai Lama. Same thing. Also: The discussion wasnt about a full account of physical performance but on gender based difference. Logical fallacy: Missing the point.
/r/MensRights06/12/12 07:47 AM
1

against their will You wrote "without consent" wrong. Also: Isnt that happening like almost always?
/r/MensRights25/11/12 04:15 PM
1

Have all the upvotes!
/r/MensRights24/11/12 08:56 AM
1

westboro baptist or just catholic type of fundamentalist? :)
/r/MensRights18/11/12 02:25 PM
10

This! A thousand times this! The single best line describing feminism as a religion I came across so far. Kudos, my dear fellow human being.
/r/MensRights17/11/12 03:59 PM
1

It's clearly not a valuational statement. If it is clearly not a valuational statement, then the context does not change the meaning of the statement and the quote is not taken out of context. If the context is required to make this statement to be non valuational, then it is clearly not clearly. The latter implies that the statement can be regarded as being non valuational. I beg to differ, but since you have a thinner understanding of reality you won't understand this. [flag: self-referential …
/r/MensRights09/11/12 10:21 AM
0

Duh!
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:21 PM
4

How does the context change the meaning of the statement?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:10 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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