TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

iTroll_irl Archive

View 1 post and 208 comments by iTroll_irl 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)
0

iTroll_irl/r/MensRights10/12/10 04:09 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You're stating as a premise that a person has a right to purchase this at a pharmacy as if it is axiomatic. It isn't. What is the basis of this right?
/r/MensRights15/12/11 05:47 AM
1

I don't understand why a woman should be allowed to wear a headscarf in a "no hats" area but a "life at conception person" should be disallowed from refusing to participate in what they view as a sinful, violent act against their religion (one they believe antithetical to the profession they entered)? I'm also unclear about how someone else's rights were infringed upon? The customer has a right to do business with a company without regard to many things, but they do not have a right to do busine…
/r/MensRights14/12/11 04:44 PM
10

I disagree. This story comes off as irregular. How these women would have learned, why they'd harass him without any information pertinent to the supposed reason (harassing him about seminars, but not saying anything related to it?), and the timing all raise red flags. I don't think any of this is warped behavior actually.
/r/MensRights12/12/11 10:00 PM
9

Redditor for 4 hours (as of 2:36PM Eastern) with a story that doesn't make sense. Hmm...
/r/MensRights12/12/11 07:37 PM
1

A tweet could warrant a firing, but that depends on a lot of factors. I agree with you that South Park plays worse stuff weekly and I watch it. Most people would chalk the tweet up to a dumb athlete acting poorly. However, who knows the backstory on all of this and it still can damage the brand. It certainly is lame but I don't see why it is inappropriate since it was almost certainly a business decision.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:46 PM
2

I'm not sure why this is inappropriate. The fighters are strongly associated with UFC so their public behavior reflects upon the organization and the sport. I'm sure Dana White and the UFC execs are concerned for the perception of their brand by mainstream America. Due to the explicitly violent nature of the sport, they're particularly vulnerable to criticism (not necessarily unwarranted). The decision makes business sense because if UFC fighters are making rape jokes to the public it makes UFC …
/r/MensRights09/12/11 07:15 PM
2

I'm telling you what the law is, not what which heuristics are the best to use. You never answered whether or not it should be legal for a property owner to charge more to a group of black males because data indicates they're more likely to be involved in property crimes or whether Asian females should be charged less because they aren't. Treating someone differently based upon their demographic data is classic discrimination. We can discuss whether it is pernicious or acceptable, but it fits th…
/r/MensRights05/12/11 06:33 PM
11

Yet, they don't ask about your ethnic background because it is considered discrimination. I might not want to rent properties to blacks because it is more statistically likely that they'll damage the property -- should I be allowed to charge them a premium?
/r/MensRights05/12/11 05:30 PM
3

In all fairness, he did poison and shoot Hitler in the head.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 04:49 PM
1

Not for this guy.
/r/MensRights17/11/11 05:08 PM
1

Poverty is a general term, I doubt anyone thought he is making $10,890 or less as per 2011 guidelines.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:00 PM
1

Yes, but 27k ain't exactly rolling in it. Hard to make an emergency fund, retirement fund, etc at that amount. It has certainly forced him to live an entirely different lifestyle than he would otherwise.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 06:49 PM
2

I see the browns are already wearing the appropriate colors. In all seriousness, I wish someone would get behind this. Prostate cancer doesn't have the same appeal that breast cancer does. Prostate's aren't visible and aren't sexualized. They don't nourish children and they don't form a part of a man's identity. Some sort of "get out the vote" style campaign wouldn't be a bad idea. Hell, we could get silly with it and get some sort of endorsement. Exercise tends to lower the risk of prostate can…
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:52 PM
1

Not getting enough attention? These posts come off as your subconscious shrieking for help.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 08:35 PM
1

I get a similar feeling sometimes when I wonder why I'm a staunch abortion rights advocate when a majority of women don't give a shit about my reproductive rights. While I'm a staunch pro-life advocate, I hate how this works out too. Unfortunately exposing this contradiction doesn't serve well as an example of legal disparity. People become so charged by the "killing babies vs controlling women" and the "equality in law vs making women & children starve" aspects that it seems little gets done.
/r/MensRights02/11/11 06:00 PM
3

Wow, you're a pretty crappy troll. Let me help you out. Ok, then you don't believe in fair treatment which is the backbone of civil rights, you simply believe in agreements. If you're going to mischaracterize someone's position, it needs to be close enough so that a 3rd party might believe the mischaracterization is the target's actual position. In that case, since might makes right, as long as whoever is in charge agrees that blacks should be made slaves again, you are perfectly fine with that …
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:45 PM
3

Yes, and I do believe that private property owners should have the right to keep blacks out if they so desire. Rights can often be abhorrent, but if we don't believe in rights that don't "feel good" then we don't really believe in rights. If just using theory, everything depends on public resources so property and privacy do not exist. Hell, one can "justify" anything. This is why jurisprudence has the reasonable actor idea, because if one makes a reasonable effort to remove themselves from the …
/r/MensRights02/11/11 05:21 PM
5

Ladies nights are just a revenue ploy to get more people in the door. If more women come, more guys will come and throw their money around. This is, generally speaking, strictly a dollars decision. That being said, I'm torn about it. As an egalitarian, the idea saddens me and seems an unethical way to make money. As a supporter of property rights, I think they owners of a private venue should be allowed to behave as they please in respect to those they allow in and how they treat them (barring o…
/r/MensRights02/11/11 04:08 PM
10

This case is different. They settled a case years ago, which included non-disclosure. The reports are coming from third parties. What we need to remember is that this stuff does still happen BUT that we should only judge after the facts come out. This "don't judge until info comes out" part is what we should focus on since who knows what happened?
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:01 PM
3

I strongly agree. People's expectations are out of line and there isn't, for lack of a better term, proper vetting done. Two people can be awesome when dating but horrible for marriage. If you have different life visions, sex drives, etc -- they catch up to you.
/r/MensRights18/10/11 02:44 PM
3

I would say this is rape in for far as she didn't get off of him when he told her to. I agree with ignatiusloyola that (link): I would agree that this kind of thing is as much rape as any other form of sex with deception. Whether sex with deception is rape, or should have its own classification entirely, is another matter.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:40 PM
1

This sounds pretty questionable...
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:51 PM
1

Yeppers.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:51 PM
1

Just did, same result.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:46 PM
1

Shows up like this for me
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:42 PM
0

Talking about this
/r/MensRights12/10/11 10:27 PM
1

Well, if a woman would give me a 'mission' which implies getting dog food for 'dinner', I would not appreciate it. Dog food is inadequate for men, however, the picture implies it's good enough for men I can't tell if you're poorly trolling, intensely moronic, or willfully misunderstanding. Absolutely nothing in that photo implies that he'll be eating dog food if he does this voluntary "mission". Also, do you realize that fontina is a creamy, nutty cheese that would likely be used in something sh…
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:30 PM
1

That doesn't answer the question.
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:15 PM
9

So what is sexist about this? It seems they appreciate the joke and wanted to share it with people as a fun thing. Specifically, what upsets people here? Also, what does this have to do with mra?
/r/MensRights12/10/11 04:03 PM
4

Thats why their kids grow up to be rapists and murderers and druggies and thieves. Funny, I've often read that it was a lack of paternal influences that permeates the childhood of these groups...
/r/MensRights12/10/11 02:21 PM
2

Not gonna lie, "Catchphrase!" was pretty hilarious. I'm not sure if I care about this one way or the other. Diet drinks tend to marketed more heavily toward women. This is just a goofy attempt to make a product for men. There's nothing demeaning to women in the commercial (just like I haven't seen anything demeaning to men in diet drink ads). shrug
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:12 AM
3

Just like we shouldn't let those filthy brown judges on the SCOTUS /s
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:03 AM
9

...no... but only because I think they have no frame of reference (not having a penis), likely truly believe they're aiding the male, and see it as acceptable enough since western medicine says it is "acceptable"
/r/MensRights11/10/11 07:00 PM
1

From the CDC website In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men Sexual risk accounts for most HIV infections in MSM. These risks include unprotected sex and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The practice of not using a condom during anal sex with someone other …
/r/MensRights07/10/11 05:31 PM
9

herp derp, I'm a poor excuse for a troll! FTFY
/r/MensRights07/10/11 05:22 PM
2

Females in general are fascinated by evil men. People in general are fascinated by evil people. Let's face it, both sexes do it.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 04:09 PM
9

People see what they want to see in these groups of people. She wanted to notice something negative so she could publicly, emotionally masturbate in article form -- and get paid. One tends to notice the [insert bad adjectives] men where the "just another young professional man" blends into the background.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 02:34 PM
2

Exactly, this holds true for any competent aggressor. Those with mental disabilities should be given special treatment, but one still shouldn't be a punching bag. Getting the bartender or bouncer involved would be a good thing. It is what they get paid for and in my experience are well aware of how poorly some drunk women behave.
/r/MensRights07/10/11 02:06 PM
4

log_in has an excellent comment
/r/MensRights06/10/11 09:00 PM
1

It certainly would make a good starting point. I don't know that answer. We'll need to remember that being a homosexual is no longer a negative thing and masculinity is not forfeited by it. I recently visited the MLK memorial in DC and feel that he would also elucidate our path as well. Cynically though, one must ask how intellectual vitality and quiet dignity would currently fare.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 03:50 AM
0

True, but the reality is that people will judge quickly and harshly. Which is why when addressing these issues, we must remain cool & focused. The last thing we want to do is to have people dismiss the cause before they've given it fair thought. IMHO, one of the easiest ways to do this is to let them think we're inadequate impotents, raging against a reality we cannot handle. No, it shouldn't matter but I'm guessing it will.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 01:18 AM
5

I'm confused why people are downvoting this. What is wrong about taking responsibility for yourself, moderating substance use, and caring for your progeny?
/r/MensRights05/10/11 05:15 PM
1

Well, I'd say that a mooch is someone who doesn't try to take care of business rather than someone who cannot despite their efforts -- assuming they don't have other problems that prevent them.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 05:10 PM
4

I meant it more as a position of credibility for someone who doesn't try to just shirk things and be worthless -- there is a huge difference between someone who mooches and a guy who just takes care of himself without getting married, etc. I'm struggling to convey it. I do realize that flirts with the "argument from authority" fallacy. Clearly, this problem is a tricky one to deal. I'll think about it more.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 03:51 PM
20

This idea makes sense. However, I caution that the letters must be written with care such that the author appears truth and solution oriented, rather than whiny and sullen. Letters such at these may be naturally resisted by some, so they can't appear like they are coming from men who don't "measure up" which may cause some to reaffirm their position.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 02:58 PM
1

Take a look at the facts and myths page at batteredmen.com.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:34 PM
1

...damn.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 02:29 PM
9

I'll be interested to see what comes of this. If nothing else, it was a creative way to draw attention to the fact that treating people differently based race and sex is a big deal. If people will make the connection that treating them differently on something larger, like college admissions, matters way more than on selling that person a muffin. I have my doubts.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:45 PM
-2

There are ways to do this that don't make MRA's look like we don't understand basic logic, statistics and reasoning. Part of physical and cultural dimorphism between the sexes means that men are more likely to be serial killers and successful at it. Exceptions do not disprove this rule anymore than a 7' woman disproves that men tend to be taller. If anything, shouldn't we wonder why a list of exceptionally awful people tends to be overwhelmingly male? The common male isn't anything like a serial…
/r/MensRights26/09/11 07:40 PM
3

Some people here focus on pointing out bad things women do. I don't understand it. We all understand that women are not angels and men are not demons. Personally, I find it horribly irrelevant. We should focus on things like sentencing disparities rather than proclivities toward crime. Even if a certain demographic is more inclined toward violence that doesn't change their rights in the eyes of the law.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 06:15 PM
8

Intoxication is not binary and nowhere did I say or imply that women deserve to get raped. To behave as though I did makes me wonder if you discuss this in bad faith. Consent that is given, even while drunk, is consent just as driving the car is a conscious choice. This consent has limits, obviously, that are individual to each incident. An unconscious person cannot consent. However, a person who can decide to walk to their car and drive can certainly decide to have sex. They should be accountab…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 06:20 AM
4

No, accountability for their behavior. Arguments are made that women cannot consent if they are intoxicated to any degree. Women are accountable if they decide to drive a car and so they should be if they choose to have sex while drunk. In our language we even say "got her drunk" in many of these cases, which is ridiculous. She chose to drink everything she drank. The idea that women are not responsible for themselves clearly does not work with equality. It is inherently unfair for one sex to be…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 01:19 AM
5

Uh, people actually ARE focused on those things are you're presenting a false dichotomy. That you don't know about those efforts and the difficult realities that accompany them is, quite frankly, your problem. I think de-railing the rape seminar is in poor taste and would be counter productive. I believe that writing an essay and publishing it in a school publication & posting it on a website would be much better. I was forced to attend something my freshman year that was factually incorrect and…
/r/MensRights15/09/11 09:34 PM
2

RTFA
/r/MensRights08/09/11 03:26 PM
4

Eh. If I heard there might be some apple turnovers in the fridge then fuckall I am confirming if they are still there and other foods be damned.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 03:18 PM
4

The men who participate in Slut Walks are basically manginas. They safely be ignored in this discussion. Mangina? Really? Are you 12? Unlike women, men know how to use logic. Both sexist and incorrect. I am a man so I'll tell you how to reduce the likelihood of rape: put on some clothes! Though dressing in skimpy clothes may not be the only reason why you will have a higher chance to get raped... it definitely contributes Data indicates this to be incorrect and you're trying to argue from author…
/r/MensRights03/09/11 03:52 AM
9

Wow, that would be monstrously creepy. I've never thought about that. Something to think about.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 02:57 AM
3

No, that is called business. I don't work for free. I don't have my current salary because I don't feel the company shouldn't pay me more. I try to get what I can. If, at that time, it is worth the money then I'll pay it to get what I want. I don't think we're going to reconcile this. That's business though, you don't have to pay me 75 an hour to shovel your snow because it isn't worth it to you.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:52 AM
3

Depends on my circumstances at the time. I've been working roughly 12 hour days the past couple weeks. I'd gladly pay someone that to clear out my snow if I trust them to work at a reasonable pace and they came along at the right time. If I gotta go to work in two hours, I don't have the time to wait for others to show up, etc.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:35 AM
5

So, in making the service available they were disrespectful? That doesn't make sense to me. How would people know they're willing to do this manual labor if they didn't advertise it?
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:17 AM
3

But that doesn't mean a bid of $150 is insulting. She wants a snow free driveway, she has to pay the price.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:11 AM
3

The labor is worth what it is worth. I don't like shoveling but would do it for 150/75 for the next big snow. If you don't want to pay that rate, I'll gladly not do it.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 12:52 AM
21

Well, they have that right. Rights do not mean freedom of repercussion from other individuals, though. A "girl's night" make sense. The reason for a wedding ceremony is generally for people you care about to witness the beginning of your new life. If they're willing to say that they care for you less due to your sex, then you have every right to be offended. Personally, I wouldn't be "Oh fuck off you sexist jackasses", I would be more like "Well, I was bothered much in the way you'd be bothered …
/r/MensRights26/08/11 04:28 PM
2

The concepts are mostly orthogonal and it is a red herring. Largely, this feels like a plot to paint us as misogynists because we "try to suppress female rights" when we do no such thing. It would be like arguing that open source advocates are pro death penalty -- absurd connections to distract. Personally, I am pro life. However, this is unrelated to my feelings towards alimony, treatment of those accused of rape, prisoners, and custody rights.I'm pro life because of where I believe humanity in…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:27 PM
1

In other scientific news, I'm still awaiting my grant money to prove my hypothesis that as distance increases, objects are harder to see -- for all distances over one meter.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 03:58 PM
2

Your title is a huge exaggeration. FTFY And in all fairness, I can commiserate with her on a lot of things. People should be more polite than to stop at the top of the escalators or when just inside the door of a train car. Men can sit with their legs reasonably close together and many do so all the time. Complaining about this kind of stuff makes us look petty & foolish.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 09:42 PM
1

Current top comment All the girl did was ask "que pasa?" seeing that the cops were surrounding them. Let's cut bullshit here, the cop was wrong and that's that. Furthermore I would like to say kudos to the boyfriend Having read the comments, they really aren't.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 04:04 PM
3

WTF are you talking about? Pretty sure everyone on Reddit is against police brutality against any individual. This is entirely unrelated to men's rights.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 03:51 PM
10

Even though some freeloaders are excellent fathers, responsibilities for arranging playdates, setting the table for dinner, and soothing children with nightmares inevitably falls to the mother, whether she has a PowerPoint presentation to deliver at eight the next morning or not. “Once you add a child into the equation, the likelihood of resentment is much higher,” observes Barbara Corcoran. So they're excellent fathers even though they don't handle their business? WTF? How low is the bar here? …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:36 PM
3

I agree with you that once people are exposed to the core ideas of the men's rights movement that they are likely to change some opinions and generally be more aware of sexist issues on both sides. However, people have to be willing to give the ideas a fair shake which is harder to do when trolls and anger muddle the message.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:01 PM
8

In addition to others have written, part of the reason is that we are also a natural target for trolls and reactionaries. A great example is the whiteknights (white supremacy) group that links here despite repeated requests to remove the link and adamant disavowal of their racist goals. Some misogyny still exists and these people also would want to associate with us to return to "the good ol days when if your dishwasher stopped working, you'd just backhand her". We also find this disgusting. How…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 07:47 PM
2

We live on the planet that humanity calls Earth, so all women are lying whores and men are vicious rapists because some of them have those qualities. This isn't even logically possible. WTF? It is a demonstration of why you cannot generalize one woman's, or even several women's behavior to all women. Similarly one cannot generalize one man's behavior, or even several men's behavior, to all men. I thought that was simple. So when you said And women wonder why we have trust issues... If only it we…
/r/MensRights13/08/11 06:51 AM
1

First, I'm a dude. Secondly, gender bias in law, politics, and society is not relevant to what stumptowngal or I have said. You can say correct things that are irrelevant and that doesn't mean anything. We live on the planet that humanity calls Earth, so all women are lying whores and men are vicious rapists because some of them have those qualities.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 09:06 PM
2

Most of what you said had nothing to do with female individuals lying for revenge or personal gain. It didn't address the issue of this thread. Just because some people fuck up and generalize particulars doesn't give other persons the excuse to do the same. Like I said, a fool's thinking.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:21 PM
1

This is the same thinking that says women should judge all men because some of them are rapists and abusers. That because some Muslims are extremists, we should fear and show aggression toward all. A fool's thinking at best.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 12:45 PM
2

Uh... yeah... err... what? FTR, I am pro cow.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:28 AM
5

Even after hearing multiple explanations, these slutwalks make about as much sense to me as wiping my ass with a cactus does.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 09:36 PM
-1

I refer you to part of my previous statement. I think you're just scrounging for a reply and not really coming up with anything. More actual suicides is a bigger deal than more attempted suicides. The fact that you try to present the reverse shows how bankrupt your arguments are. I don't think you know what a bankrupt argument is. I'm also not sure you know what understanding is. A situation like this requires more than just a simple platitude. Rich people are a minority, and they are disliked a…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 12:36 PM
1

Nothing in your comment makes any sense, to me anyway. It seems as if you are saying it is okay to treat rich minorities differently because it doesn't put them "[b]elow the threshold of evidence of a worse life". men commit suicide more, so unless you are saying none of them had a reason to do so, maybe you should admit they were mistreated before they died? This part in particular. According to this fact sheet from the CDC and Wikipedia women are more likely to attempt suicide but men are more…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 09:24 PM
1

Or rich people problems. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot those don't count. she is a paid professional for doing nothing but giving her superficial opinion to everyone. So she has a job... and does it... but you don't like how she does it. This makes her entitled how? Complaining about whistling workmen as if that is real discrimination FWIW, I've only had women cat call me a few times. However, when my gf and I or my sister and I go running, people feel the need to make remarks and stare pretty frequen…
/r/MensRights03/08/11 09:01 PM
9

In my utopia, equality of opportunity is guaranteed, but equality of outcome is not. This is the correct stance. Most of my conversations, anecdotal I know, tend to have people focusing on outcome. Just because outcome is a more easily measurable metric doesn't mean it is the correct metric.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:11 PM
2

An opinion based upon what?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 05:08 PM
2

One of those things slacktivism things where they try to appear sensitive and deep, probably to get closer to women. Some people don't have enough to do.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 04:56 PM
3

If you're not an idiot, you'll support it. Agree with me or you're dumb. What a great way to persuade people, I haven't been subjected to argument that persuasive since 4th grade. I disagree that this article states what you say it states and that it has anything to do with MR.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:26 PM
1

And we all know how difficult high school debate is. I suppose the litigators on this board should be afraid now /s
/r/MensRights29/07/11 02:25 AM
1

Commenting but not reading is one of the reasons why things are bad. COME ON!
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:16 PM
1

You see, things like not rtfa are why things are bad. COME ON!
/r/MensRights27/07/11 08:15 PM
1

Your comment certainly has me thinking about it in a new way. My problem is I keep focusing on how I would solve the problem in theory -- all demographic data is accessible upon the start with rate adjustments over time based on behavioral characteristics, which should transfer. This should be available in all insurance settings. I'm not sure if it is sexist since it is closer to a theoretical optimum for risk assessment and the protection is for the future period. Wages and retail being for pas…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:55 PM
1

I note that you didn't give an example.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 07:17 PM
-1

Legally they are not allowed to consider race in their calculations but they are allowed to consider gender, as it can impact claims. I don't think it is discriminatory because it is what the data indicates as correct.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:28 PM
1

Comparing services that a company offers based on usage data to how persons should be treated in the eyes of the law is like comparing apples and coffee cups. Not even remotely the same things.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:28 PM
6

So since we aren't being constantly forced into genocidal conflicts like we might be in parts of Africa we should stfu about custody, circumcision, etc then, right? /s I suppose since bus passengers in Mexico have been forced to fight to the death with hammers, we should just forget about doing justice correctly here? Yeah, you got a downvote you dingbat.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:37 AM
1

Except they aren't calling for him to resign because he's batty, unorthodox, etc. They are calling for him to resign because of an accusation, without evidence that we know of and before investigation, of sexual misconduct. It sets a horrendous precedent and confirms the idea that accusing a man of sexual aggression is a way to destroy him.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:35 PM
2

because every lawyer I know thinks THAT was a great example of our legal and jury systems...
/r/MensRights25/07/11 01:32 PM
5

While I do love Chris Rock, that isn't really a relevant clip to my question. He's black and our culture allows him to use slurs against blacks and whites. Do we you have a clip of a white, blonde man like the op link?
/r/MensRights23/07/11 01:46 PM
12

Out of curiosity, would you be listening seriously to a guy that looked like him who spoke about racism, racial class divides, and racial interaction if he said niggers every 10 seconds? What about spooks, darkies, wetbacks, chinks? Would you honestly be thinking "this person will likely be insightful and have well reasoned arguments"?
/r/MensRights23/07/11 07:00 AM
2

Age of Consent on Wikipedia has some interesting stuff. I think when we take it in context, a twelve year old back then was likely treated more like a 16-18 year old today. They had responsibilities, were working, and generally life was serious. This is, I guess, the inherent problem of a numeric law when each circumstance is unique. Delaware had it at 7, which I think we can say was too young even but was it? My gut says yes, but I suppose one could rationalize all the way down to when copulati…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 07:39 PM
3

No, he's right. Compelling argument. I'm swayed. You're also a bit of an asswipe. Yeah, I can be. DYGT? No, your comment was such a deep sea of metaphor and insight that I felt overwhelmed by the crashing waves of knowledge and logic. Maybe you could explain it more clearly?
/r/MensRights22/07/11 07:08 PM
1

No, I know you're not. You are correct that it seems to be arbitrary which is why I need to read about the reasoning for them. I do believe that I could have consented to an encounter when younger with someone of a similar age, but that due to circumstances couldn't consent with someone much older. There are glaring contradictions in how we treat young people all the time, which I think contributes to crappy attitudes.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:49 PM
8

It really is a double standard. I do have to say though, that while life in prison seems too harsh -- he should get some time. A coach is in a position of power over the players, particularly at good programs, and is obligated to respect that dynamic. We had a lot of athletes from my high school get full and partial athletic scholarships and walk on to college teams -- this really helps college admissions. That power gap, due to age and position, really does make this problematic. I can imagine …
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:45 PM
5

If you're a man, you're certainly an abbreviated version I have all the impact of a man, but delivered more efficiently? BTW, IMHO U should STFU cuz UR dumb...
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:35 PM
1

Well, I'd need to read more about the reasoning for age of consent laws. I do believe that we need them. FWIW, in old cultures (and some disgusting modern ones) when marriages happened really young, they still waited for some level of sexual maturity. I'd be interested to know how that works out.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:32 PM
4

There were over reactions to this on both sides really. Some people who couldn't see anything wrong with Polanski's behaviour and others who suddenly saw the Devil Incarnate in him. Isn't they why the "good rapist" scenario is an appropriate parallel? People were lamenting that Polanski couldn't return to the US to accept his Grammy or something for The Pianist. Some of us are still stuck on the "you don't get to drug & rape a child and then flee justice" thing, regardless of his artistic talent…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 05:48 PM
6

I did downvote him and am a man. He's either a shitty troll or an outright bigoted idiot. Either way he deserves the downvotes.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 04:04 PM
4

Say that next time someone rubs a hard dick over your mouth when holding you down.
/r/MensRights22/07/11 02:41 PM
11

A short thought experiment, do you think that Robert Swope would have received the same reaction if he were, in fact, Roberta Swope? This situation sounds like the Roman Polanski one -- age gap, intoxicants, rape, somehow the rapist doesn't just get off but is lauded by society. Not being able to read Swope's article naturally raises the question of how it was written. It very well could have had the central point correct but have buried it under a downright insulting, ignorant style. I find thi…
/r/MensRights22/07/11 02:39 PM
3

CSI Effect Essentially, it means that the crime shows we watch screw up our reasoning for real cases. Specifically, it means that the necessary forensics for conviction is often absurdly high. However, the corollary to this is that many shows -- like Monk -- use a lot of "profiler" nonsense that similarly impacts juries. It applies here because now the "profile of a guilty person" is someone who presents a logically sound and rational defense. In this case, these "juries" are now predisposed to …
/r/MensRights21/07/11 04:51 PM
5

Yes, but the panel was basically being told that the accused attempts to defend his or her innocence was an admission of guilt. The more calmly and rationally done, the bigger the admission. The calmest, most rational thing one can do is to point at the verifiable facts. This paradigm poisons people against those who defend themselves with evidence. Combined with the CSI effect, it leads to awful thinking.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 04:18 PM
36

People who are often rightfully accused act with indignation to appear innocent. People who are wrongfully accused could be coldly rational by saying, "This is impossible because I wasn't there. I have video evidence and phone records to prove it." Judging someone's guilt based upon their initial reaction is horrendously foolish.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 02:56 PM
2

I'm curious if the rate really went down or if the ease of access in nearby areas shifted where the buying occurs. Rather like a dry county, all the residents drive to buy their liquor.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 07:20 PM
9

when you dance with the devil, you wait till he has stopped. That is insanely well put, for so many situations.
/r/MensRights19/07/11 03:44 PM
28

Hugo is justifying his and Jill's cowardice and irresponsibility. Nothing more. He just wants to enjoy getting laid without the consequences of his actions, including the social stigma -- as does she. A pathetic display of manliness and humanity. The solution of the problem of cuckolding women is women not cuckolding men (without consent of course).
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:41 PM
1

Yes and any deviation from what you just said muddles the issue, confuses people, and leaves a modicum of doubt for those who would prefer to interpret it in a particular way. This is what Dawkins should have said. He'd have nailed it, get some good press from both sides, and people would have thought he gets it. Instead we have what we have and Dawkins should have known better.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 12:10 PM
1

Except that the comparison is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The point should have been "This is a non issue" not "This event pales in comparison to". The point should have been, "This is exactly how it should have happened. Non-aggressive conversation and respectfully accepting the denial. It is not possible for it to have happened any better." The comparison is terrible. Just because something much worse happens doesn't mean what is happening isn't bad -- the Bhutan Death March does…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 10:34 PM
3

minorthreat77 is quoting the link...
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:22 PM
5

Quire frankly, I think a lot of people say it just because they want to "win" the discussion. This is distinctly different from being right. Leprecon is right about it being a logical fallacy.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:14 PM
1

The proper reply isn't a comparison to a much greater evil, it is to point directly at how ludicrous this person is being. It calls for no comparison other than "his behavior is a non-issue because people are not clairvoyant, there was no aggression, he was respectful of her response. This man did nothing wrong and shouldn't be castigated. Those offended should reflect on how inquiry and respect are being interpreted as harmful and then direct their energies towards something else" I am firmly o…
/r/MensRights08/07/11 04:11 PM
4

He was comparing a non-issue to an issue to show what an issue really looks like. Why should we care about the particular oppressions of men in western society? Men in Africa are being coerced into genocidal conflict all the time -- that is a real concern! Does it make more sense now why his comparison sucked? I liked the message, hated the delivery.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 03:36 PM
7

The problem is that too many people believe that if you disagree with them, then you aren't adding to the conversation... which often makes no sense.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 03:23 PM
2

For the same reason we keep marijuana illegal :(
/r/MensRights07/07/11 10:09 PM
-2

Yes, I get it. Women are gendered, men are de-gendered. I don't think it matters nearly as much as you. Think about it. Have you ever in your life heard or read anyone describe the decline in American manufacturing jobs as a gender issue affecting men? No. Actually, yes, I have. A couple years ago when they coined the term "mancession". I remember discussing it because I helped write a proposal about retooling education (community college and legit online education) because jobs that men were mo…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 09:58 PM
-3

Way to miss the fucking point: Great way to start out a post. Top notch. I'm already being persuaded. They are described as happening to a de-gendered group of "workers" or "people". Whereas when things happen to women, it's always described explicitly in gender-specific terms, as something happening to women. This type of reporting unifies women and makes people think about women as a gender group, but works against the unification of men and makes people think of men as generic "people" or "wo…
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:39 PM
2

I'm not an egalitarian, What are you? I also cannot recall any conjecture on "he better answer is to make the best life out of what "is"". What is it you think should happen?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:33 PM
0

So you're saying that in order for people to be treated with equal respect, we need to overcome the limitations of our biology? How? Brave New World style?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:21 PM
2

So you're saying that women's contributions as other than mothers are not being properly appreciated? Also, that paternity is undervalued?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 03:02 PM
4

I almost want to downvote because I have to wait until the work day is over to watch these. Damn you omegaflux!
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:20 PM
5

I see what you are saying there. However, there are two sides of it. We are being defined by our jobs where they are defined by their sex. Both are descriptions of the people, but not particularly detailed. At trivia last night, I noticed that some were defining us as "Comp Sci/business guy, art guy, sports nut, history guy, poly sci guy, and the girls". I wasn't sure what to make of that.
/r/MensRights07/07/11 02:18 PM
2

So, most promotions go to people other than your specific demographic? Have you considered that there are more of them and people who are married / parents tend to be older, meaning they likely have more seniority?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 10:00 PM
1

I'll reply to myself as it is easier -- that was the point. The law does not require a paternity test, which is what we need to have as a default. However, I'll say that I'm not sure that he deserves anything from Arnold. The child is his. He loves him, has gotten the memories of raising him, and there must have been reasonable suspicion it was his kid since he was presumably having sex with the mother. Also, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to hear that your child isn't biologically …
/r/MensRights05/07/11 09:43 PM
2

While it does suck, I'm not clear on what the legal justification would be there? Why does he deserve financial compensation for learning this?
/r/MensRights05/07/11 05:55 PM
1

It is about risk assessment. That something is #2 or #3 doesn't mean it is nearly as good as #1 or #2. It isn't just Greece that is having problems -- Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy are all struggling too. How will this monetary union be managed without a stronger political union? For the lower class, there is very little labor mobility in the Eurozone which significantly hampers their ability to rebound their economies. The Euro is basically version 2.0 of the deutschemark. Will the Germans…
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:04 PM
3

As of now, the Euro is not particularly stable. Greece needs a bailout or it will default. Germany and France (Germany in particular) have had to spend a lot of money helping out economies that simply are not viable for world competition anymore. If Greece were to fail, the Iberian countries might default next. This would effectively collapse the currency since several Eurozone countries would devalue if they could.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 03:56 PM
1

I guess women don't do anything wrong, so I must have made it up. That is clearly the implication of what I said, that women are somewhere between us mere men and the angels. A species of both greater fortitude and sensitivity that all of us men should feel blessed to be in the mere presence of, regardless of how we are treated... or you are full of it and showing it by overreacting even if your stories are both true and accurate. Yeah, I'm also rather large and have had to carry people before -…
/r/MensRights18/06/11 12:32 AM
2

Frankly, these stories sound made up. Carrying an for a mile is pretty difficult and would tend to attract campus police. Possesive boyfriend happens to be around the next day and assaults you? 20 phone calls from people saying "you are pro-rape" over a polite suggestion that she not get blackout drunk? If the stories are true, they sound exaggerated. They sound outright fabricated.
/r/MensRights17/06/11 09:45 PM
1

I WILL write down simplistic platitudes that do not fully address equality. I WILL try to make the impact greater with pomposity.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 03:21 PM
1

I think that only holds true if they are getting any benefit from the government whatsoever. If, however, they are paying fair rates, private, etc then they have the right of free association. We just need to bring it back that men can do the same thing.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 03:18 PM
0

Sigh... this again?
/r/MensRights25/05/11 05:28 PM
1

Sorry for the delay. It depends. If my reaction is snapping at someone for his/her incompetence, unpreparedness, etc too strongly then yes. If I were to punch my girlfriend in the stomach, then no. The letting off of frustration in a safe space is about venting, not about aggression. Those are very, very different.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 05:27 PM
4

Agreed. I have serious back and leg pain due to a spinal injury. Sometimes I have searing, acute pain for hours on end and cannot sit down for more than 20min and have trouble walking. This does not excuse irrational or unpleasant behavior for me because people I interact with haven't been deserving of any negative behavior. My temper is a bit shorter, but I work to try to maintain an even keel.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 05:57 PM
2

Yes, yes it does. The "_irl" part is pretty important, but we've already established that you don't actually read things so I'm not surprised at your statement.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 07:29 PM
3

I'm apparently communicating with a dummy, troll, or combination. I'm betting on combination.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 06:59 PM
2

I'm not the one making the claims without evidence. Your wall of text, clearly copied and pasted from wikipedia's phalate page does not constitute citing sources. Sources have to be relevant to the point made otherwise it is meaningless crap.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:57 PM
2

You have no sources, no analysis to say that external chemicals like that would negatively impact testosterone. I'm cut and wank it sans lube embarrassingly frequently.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:32 PM
1

There was basically only one kind of crime on those trains: sexual assault by groping. It overwhelmed all other crimes in number. There was basically one kind of victim: female. There was basically one kind of perpetrator: male. If one can protect the victims by allowing them a place where the perpetrators could not go, it increases their safety. It does not decrease the safety of the men. None of the things you mentioned about crimes going the other way matter as they were statistically insigni…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 12:58 AM
1

I notice you never actually provided a citation nothing happened to these women afterward. I notice you overlook the fact that there is a name for people not intervening to stop it: bystander effect / Genovese syndrome. Happens more than we like to admit. So you ask if I can imagine something like that happening -- in a place like India yeah, I can.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 12:39 AM
1

There are a number of guys on field hockey teams, actually. The first page of google results would show you that. Should they be barred from playing -- maybe as there is a distinct advantage of having a guy on the field in most cases. See NBA vs WNBA. In wrestling or all-male sports, it is just open. In our program you had to challenge for your spot on the roster. There were no cuts, you just have to make it physically. If you can, great. If not, tough.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 03:44 PM
1

First, do you have a citation that nothing happened to those women? Also, they didn't "take a cart" -- it is their designated cart. He got on their cart. Were they wrong? Yeah. Do Indian police not take care of business sometimes? Yeah. Does that mean the women were entitled? No, it means the police didn't do their job. Why? Who knows. Is it because women are entitled? Doubtful. You are using a false equivalence with your "white cart" there. Virtually no men were being groped. Show me a crime th…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 03:55 AM
0

One crappy incident has no bearing on the validity of the policy. Many women were groped over many years, which was the impetus for the policy. That one train car of women acted like bitches when some guy got on the woman-only car does not invalidate that. Were they wrong -- of course. Were the men groping women on the trains throughout the years wrong -- yes. It is hardly a pathetic female entitlement to ride to work without having some dumb fuck paw at your genitals or breasts.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 05:12 AM
1

...you need to take another look at India.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 01:02 AM
-1

In Japan and India there were definitely problems and there has been continuing strong demand for the female only cars and large numbers of females had been groped. This seems legit to me.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:48 PM
3

Crappy joke and untrue.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:32 PM
2

Sadly in many of those places it is actually necessary to have a female only car because of a noticeable minority of jackasses.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 10:30 PM
1

Imma take that from your window sill and run off like the dickens...
/r/MensRights26/01/11 05:00 PM
1

Agreed. I couldn't figure out how to word it. The necessity to be rude reeks of high school and insecurity.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 04:03 PM
0

Or you just acted like a jerk when someone didn't actually insult your wife or beliefs and do not have the humility to apologize.
/r/MensRights19/01/11 11:07 PM
0

I disagree about it being because you want to communicate your confidence and your control of the situation. Simply acting like a gentleman is not enough. It is being a gentleman that is important. Trying to take control of the relationship from the outset strikes me as questionable -- relationships are not a power struggle. Purposefully trying to demonstrate superior social ability than your date posses actually shows one to be an arrogant snob. I hope you do not mean it that way, but as a gene…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 09:49 PM
9

Uh, you might also realize that women (like men) enjoy attention and flirting. It rarely amounts to anything. Also, if a female is impressed by a "player" in a short conversation, then she isn't much of a woman. If you got a woman with a short convo at a bar while her boyfriend was 45 feet away that speaks volumes about who and what she is. If you marry your life is over - you just don't know it yet Yeah, if you hang around vacuous, insubstantial bitches it would be. Just so you know, don't tell…
/r/MensRights19/01/11 03:59 PM
4

I thought "Steak and a BJ" day was "Saturday". My bad.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 06:44 PM
12

Really guys? Come on.
/r/MensRights13/01/11 05:28 PM
5

Our problem is not our media. Our problem is that intellectually we Americans seem to take the path of least resistance if it doesn't involve making money or personal glory. Some of us don't but we are outnumbered.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 10:25 PM
2

For some reason this particularly makes me rage hard about the FBI not interviewing me because I don't have enough post collegiate professional experience yet. I would love to be able to intervene in situations like this as a law enforcement officer (I've had to before and while it is scary as all hell it helps me sleep better at night).
/r/MensRights09/01/11 07:56 PM
3

Unfortunately, things like this largely contribute to continuing racism. I live in DC and primarily take the metro about once a week. As much as I hate it, I know I will be on my guard significantly more around black people. What makes me angrier is that no one pushed the emergency button and no one came to his aid. I am livid right now and having trouble typing. Not banding together to help the attacked is what allows shit like this to go on and in some cases just get out of control in a city.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 07:16 PM
11

Yes, but we won't find you desirable. FTFY
/r/MensRights07/01/11 05:00 PM
1

Only when I'm not getting any.
/r/MensRights05/01/11 04:35 PM
0

Ahh... still trying to sell that manhood101 nonsense. if your link was valid, it would work better read the article, you won't sound incredibly foolish hyperbole should not be a motif in writing -- tone it down if what you were trying to sell wasn't the lowest form of drivel and imitation manliness, you might get more sales Just a few suggestions, since you come off as more incompetent in this post than in your previous advertisements.
/r/MensRights21/12/10 10:53 PM
0

This makes me want to make a program called VMWife.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 05:52 PM
3

Ergo, gay people hate math. This is why they tend towards the arts.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 10:34 PM
2

Meh. It is the uniform. He knew what it was when he signed up. We had a team get disqualified from the 4*400 at state because the uniforms did not match because they were wearing different color spandex under their regular uniform. For the record, I think the uniform is questionable (though I liked watching the girls practice when in high school).
/r/MensRights04/12/10 01:24 AM
1

Slacktivism at its finest and least effective.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 08:22 PM
4

feminist policies ... [t]hey were discriminatory, misandrist and ginocentric. Some were, yes. Not all. Analyzing such policiies as a result of emotionally-driven short-sighted selfishness makes perfect sense: we all know that women are generally irrational and governed by their emotions, instincts and social conditioning. Would you consider this analogous to saying "We know men are horny pigs that just want to fight and screw every women, so it makes sense to analyze every action in light of thi…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 07:24 PM
1

I commented on the similarity of tactics, not beliefs. Not really sure how your response addresses that. Perhaps I should have said it feels "Olbermann-esque"?
/r/MensRights18/11/10 06:43 PM
2

If you cannot ascertain the point from looking at the thread in its entirety, then I just don't know how I could explain it. You can avoid discussion through feigned ignorance, ad hominem, red herring and non-sequitur if you want. You are pretty good at that: what you are doing has a very Fox News feel to it.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 06:13 PM
3

So... the actual rebuttal? Is that coming or should I just expect more of the same sophomoric drivel? I don't take 'thought policing' from the assholes that INVENTED it (feminists) Are you serious? I am unable to express how underwhelming and incorrect this statement is. This is one of those "opinions are not facts" issues.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:40 PM
3

If you had the fortitude for such a thing, you would have done it already. You have insulted, cursed, and gotten defensive. None of these things constitute a substantial response.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 05:04 PM
3

Facts are not opinions. To effectively state they are likely demonstrates that you either cannot think rationally about this because of some emotional interference or you have not put in the effort make an argument that is worth respecting. I am sure Condoleezza Rice was thinking about women when she pushed to require diplomats to serve in hardship regions, to gain expertise in two or more areas and require fluency in two foreign languages.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:06 PM
8

Saying a man is not a man because of his opinions is juvenile. It makes us look juvenile.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 10:27 PM
7

Lame insult and it makes r/mensrights look bad too.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 10:00 PM
0

As someone who has been patted down a few times (both for work and for other reasons), I think it is because people are mostly immature and are associating the touching with sexuality -- and God forbid there is ever any incidental gayness. There is nothing sexual about a pat down and as far as that part people need to grow the fuck up.
/r/MensRights14/11/10 04:48 AM
1

Citation for the danger of the machines?
/r/MensRights10/11/10 09:23 PM
2

Actually they use them with the FBI: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901415.html Polygraphs are admissible in several states by stipulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#United_States
/r/MensRights03/11/10 09:13 PM
1

Perhaps it is supposed to be a reference to the past where women were considered "a weaker sex" and get a reaction out of that for clicks? Meh.
/r/MensRights03/11/10 09:05 PM
18

Yeah, we don't cheer on prison rape here. We tend to find it abhorrent, like the rest of rape.
/r/MensRights01/11/10 08:50 PM
2

No, I do not think the argument would be invalidated because language evolves with time -- the commonly accepted spelling, even by early feminists is women. However, the person you are arguing with is not necessarily the one you want to convince -- the people who witness said arguments are the one to convince. The point is not that the argument is invalidated, the point is that it may be perceived as flawed because of how it is presented. I think we would agree that there is clearly a difference…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 05:18 PM
1

Well, I think you pointed out why using profanity weakens the argument. Not in a strictly logical sense, but in how the message is interpreted by others. Since argument is done through communication, it has to be done in a certain way to work correctly. If at the end of arguments about President Obama doing [X], one presents a rigorous, sourced, unbiased negative critique they punctuate it with "nigger" -- it immediately harms the effectiveness of the critique to the audience. It should not, but…
/r/MensRights30/09/10 04:14 PM
1

Wow... you are embarrassingly bad at trolling. Try harder next time.
/r/MensRights28/09/10 04:48 PM
1

As opposed to kicking them? Isn't that what someone who isn't a "mangina" would do? Should I throw them at women and babies?
/r/MensRights15/09/10 10:56 AM
1

Do you really think you fool people with your manhood 101 nonsense? Or that ggg1727 is a new account(37 min) just like collin_worh(4days), or texkdf(9 hours)? This multi-pronged approach is just weak. Yes. I am sure that at the top of your ivory tower you laugh at the peons of this world. You clearly bestride this world like a mental colossus by using words like "mangina", "bitch" and "cunt". Diction sharp enough to cut a man in half.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 06:54 PM
1

Wow. I don't know when I have ever felt as underwhelmed as when I read this comment. I mean, even when I saw V.Tech lose to James Madison I wasn't this underwhelmed.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 05:45 PM
3

Q: How do you identify someone who never made it past age 14 in maturity? A: We cannot be positive. However, like the above, you know it when you see it.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 11:14 AM
16

If this guy is continually doing this -- you could likely sue him for libel and the damages could be astonishingly high. If this happens in the future, I recommend getting the Policeman's ID number (they are required to provide this in this case). File a complaint about this unnecessarily rough behavior. Also, if you have the time -- start taking pictures and documenting that dbags behavior with timestamps.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 08:56 PM
10

So... this "undercover officer" physically assaulted you? For impersonating an officer, assault, and criminal threatening charges sound like they should be in order. A civil case could be nice too. Sadly, the girls are way out of line as well but he is the only one who can actually get screwed over. There might be some "inciting" law I'm unaware though. You stood up for yourself in a difficult situation and did so intelligently. Kudos. Now, if this officer is trying to use his office to intimida…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 01:21 PM
0

Meanwhile, actual men are here for discussion -- not 14 year old angst personified that inspires those awful Axe body sprays and turbo whey protein shakes that only increase the chance you'll smell like failure when crying over your saggy man-tit rage.
/r/MensRights07/09/10 09:49 PM
3

Wow. You just plain suck at trolling.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 12:07 AM
2

I'm not sure what you mean. That doesn't fall under the banner of "US or most countries" or that Indian and Asian men don't fill up your postgrad spots?
/r/MensRights01/09/10 08:29 PM
1

You are really going to argue that science education tends to be as emphasized for females in any part of the US or most countries? She went to the best girls private high school (an omission of mine) where I went to the best boys private high school. In terms of math and science, the quality of the education was incomparable. I didn't clarify (taking quick breaks from work while scripts run) and that was my mistake. Yeah, most people in the hard sciences, engineering, and math tend to be men. W…
/r/MensRights01/09/10 07:01 PM
8

Is this because the crushing majority of people are not cut out to be experimental physicists? I would think so. I would also think that it has to do with the fact that most girls get crappy education in science anyway (old gf went to best private hs in the state, still needed tutoring in calc/phys/biochem at university).
/r/MensRights01/09/10 06:34 PM
1

It is just a difficult situation. I don't think there is any good solution. The most effective thing would probably be some mandatory education on it or something, though I doubt that would pass Constitutional muster.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 11:15 PM
2

I agree. The only issue is "succeeded on their own merits" is an incredibly difficult thing to determine. Even if a person was succeeding, would he/she have continued to do so if not married? Succeeded more? Perhaps the spouse held him/her back? Just because one person makes more does not entitle the other person to that money. However, it is difficult to say that the other person is, by virtue of the marriage agreement, not generally entitled to some shared assets to ensure they have a chance t…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 10:58 PM
2

I do not know how that should be done or if it could be done justly. I was speaking more in terms of how we should be looking at the problem, though I imagine the specificity of how it should be handled would be prohibitively technical and long for this discussion. Certainly if the at-fault party was found abusive, the not-at-fault party should keep the children. The litmus for this should be that the at-fault party should have to be prosecuted for abuse or something. Not sure...
/r/MensRights31/08/10 10:44 PM
2

Eloquently put. However, should the paradigm be about penalizing the one at fault or protecting the one not at fault? I would prefer to be pushing for protecting the good spouse (and by extension children) rather than punishing the bad one. The key is to change that men are being treated as if they are at fault regardless of the situation.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 10:28 PM
2

I have seen much about this. The gentleman in question seems to ignore this. Another aspect that is rarely mentioned is the increase in earning power a partner can get with support. I recently spoke with an executive who is making close to 2M this year and during his vacation did a 4 day job where he got 200k. His wife helped him get his MBA and pay for school for his 3 children. I do think that alimony should reflect this in some way, however that is just a difficult problem to solve as it is n…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 10:23 PM
1

I apologize Mr. Pedant for my egregious error that clearly prohibited all understanding. Marriage has a generally stable and well known implementation that allows all concerned parties to understand before entering any binding agreement. Aforementioned implementation is based on years of experiential and theoretical jurisprudence, which will not perfect is generally of high quality when applied though the aforementioned can and should evolve with time. Perhaps that might explain it a bit better,…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 09:29 PM
3

Yes, all qualities are binary. The concept of a continuum is anathema in qualities as pertaining to marriage.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 09:20 PM
6

There is something wrong with the way divorce is handled. Marriages can and sometimes should end. You clearly understand the problems with how it is handled -- the children are often forcibly separated from a loving parent, used as weapons, etc. That is clearly an abomination. There is quite a bit of jurisprudence behind how property divisions are supposed to be done. This is true for alimony and child support as well. That you do not understand this or choose not to accept it is your problem. T…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 08:54 PM
2

Indentured servitude != slavery != freely entered contractual agreement with no coercion to enter into agreement The institution of marriage is not flawed in the US. It is a legal construct that people may freely enter -- it is their burden to understand what they are getting in to. The flaws come from large numbers of people not handling their obligations correctly (most marriages end in divorce, meaning they likely didn't vet partners properly or understand what marriage is) and cultural parad…
/r/MensRights31/08/10 05:54 PM
6

I'm going to go ahead and say "calm down". Frankly, you sound emotionally driven in your reply about something that should be analytically driven. That things are not working correctly when marriages fail is not a charade, it is a failure to have good exit mechanisms and legal precedents. Let us not forget that perhaps some blame should be on those who "blindly enter" rather than figuring out what they should do.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 04:03 PM
8

You mean like how the person freely entered into this legal construct? It isn't as simple as you are making it out to be.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 02:48 PM
3

Weak.
/r/MensRights30/08/10 07:25 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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