TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

j3utton Archive

View 0 posts and 199 comments by j3utton on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Yes, you should know how to do those things, and much more, if nothing other than for your own independence. But there's no reason to be made fun of for not having the opportunity to learn earlier in life. Heres a situationally appropriate YouTube channel to start learning https://youtube.com/channel/UCNepEAWZH0TBu7dkxIbluDw And there is a video on doorknobs. Good luck.
/r/MensRights04/07/21 11:17 AM
1

If you know this person, document everything and call CPS.
/r/MensRights06/10/20 06:04 PM
26

That's kind of the way it's always worked in societies. The court jester was the only person allowed to criticize the king.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 01:25 PM
4

Well, yea, I would consider race and sex to be immutable characteristics. Maybe some progressives would disagree with that though?
/r/MensRights19/02/20 07:22 PM
8

It's just scary there are people alive today, in 2020, that still put other humans below themselves for any reason and they go to my college! There are plenty of reasons to rightfully think lower of other individuals. Immutable characteristics, however, do not belong on that list.
/r/MensRights19/02/20 04:02 PM
3

... how about we realize that as long as neither of them were unwittingly drugged, nor were either of them so drunk that they were unconscious, THEN THEY WERE BOTH ABLE TO CONSENT.
/r/MensRights14/01/20 04:24 AM
6

So, I don't know where this is, but at least where I live, this isn't legally true. http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm S 130.05 Sex offenses; lack of consent. Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. Lack of consent results from: [...] (b) Incapacity to consent; or [...] A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: [...] (c) mentally incapacitated; or (d) …
/r/MensRights08/01/20 02:11 PM
3

And no, my scenario wasnt about future assets, it was about contribution to society and the detriment of losing that contribution. Young children who grow up without a father are drastically more likely to not succeed and more likely to end up in jail. Someone who owns a small business has employees that rely on them to run that business. Without the person running it the business fails and those people lose their job. Both of these scenarios cost society in a measurable way, and the loss of a p…
/r/MensRights19/11/19 03:10 AM
1

It absolutely was an argument in good faith. Try having a discussion with people once in a while instead of blindly arguing with them.
/r/MensRights19/11/19 02:54 AM
1

Thanks
/r/MensRights19/11/19 12:58 AM
2

If you think the only thing I'm talking about is "capitalisms bottom line" then you're a fucking moron. I love how you're so willing to just shit on my point of view based on your incorrect assumptions without taking a moment to try to actually understand it.
/r/MensRights19/11/19 12:12 AM
0

Lots of projection that last paragraph. You're also missing the forest for the trees.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 10:58 PM
2

What about other factors? Now you're getting it. You just very clearly demonstrated that someone with those attributes is worth more than someone who doesn't. Good job! Also, no one said this was about "material objects".
/r/MensRights18/11/19 10:57 PM
1

Everyone has immeasurable value? Over 30,000 people die from car accidents per year in the US. Every one of their lives could be saved by reducing the speed limit to 12 miles an hour. Are you willing to do that? If the immeasurable value of those lives isn't worth more to you than the lost productivity of a 12 mph national speed limit then the value of those lives isn't really immeasurable to you, is it? Everything has a value, even life. And if you can't understand that someone leaving behind 3…
/r/MensRights18/11/19 09:01 PM
-5

... so you aren't willing to answer the question?
/r/MensRights18/11/19 08:25 PM
-2

You seem like a very stable individual.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 08:17 PM
-6

There are MANY factors to consider, earning potential is just one of them. This is how the world works, and it NEEDS to work that way. We don't have the resources to build tornado shelters at intervals of every 1/8 of a mile across the continent, nor will society function if the speed limit on every road is dropped down to 12 miles per hour. Two people die. One is a retired 89 year old man who had no family. The other is a 35 year old business owner with 3 kids under the age of 6. Which death is…
/r/MensRights18/11/19 08:13 PM
-18

That's just factually incorrect. We necessarily place values on human life all of the time when making societal and personal decisions, and we calculate those values based on different criteria like earning potential and number of years left on average to live.
/r/MensRights18/11/19 07:58 PM
5

If any other demographic shot this many people [...] Someone isn't very good with reality, facts, or statistics.
/r/MensRights05/08/19 02:59 PM
434

Díaz was transported to a local hospital and is stable condition after he underwent surgery. That would have been nice to include
/r/MensRights13/03/19 05:57 PM
-4

There are ways of protecting yourself here without flushing your condoms. Then you're a cunt, because "There are ways of protecting yourself here without flushing your condoms."
/r/MensRights10/02/19 04:51 PM
-1

Yes, let's intentionally introduce more plastics into our waterways. There are ways of protecting yourself here without flushing your condoms.
/r/MensRights10/02/19 04:49 PM
19

There's something to be said where lonely men desire a doll that resembles the entire woman that they then form a relationship with, while lonely women want only a phallic object to satisfy themselves in the moment. Says quite a bit about what these men value about a woman vs what these women value about a man.
/r/MensRights01/02/19 11:52 PM
161

Good. Dumbasses.
/r/MensRights25/01/19 11:39 PM
16

Yea, wearing a hat, or having different political views than you apparently makes them a "piece of shit". Got it.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 03:53 PM
7

I don't think this person is claiming that the kid did mock the guys culture. They're just claiming culture mocking shouldn't be off limits. It's an addition to the conversation, not a refute of your point that there was no mocking.
/r/MensRights23/01/19 03:52 PM
1

intended to motivate women to buy gillette products for their men and themselves. It's only going to motivate women who already hate men. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't think "most" women think masculinity is toxic.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 01:48 PM
1

And if that's the case for an individuals situation, they could ask their wife not to purchase those brands and explain the reason why. I don't know about y'all, but my wife doesn't think masculinity is "toxic" and I doubt she'd willingly and knowingly support a corporation that thinks so.
/r/MensRights16/01/19 01:46 PM
3

Ah, didn't realize all the same company. thanks. What are you replacing with?
/r/MensRights16/01/19 02:34 AM
3

Pampers and Pantene, what have they done? Might need to find some different brands
/r/MensRights16/01/19 02:19 AM
10

None of those things are exclusive to humans.
/r/MensRights01/01/19 11:28 PM
30

Prager is a pretty conservative outlet. This is a video from their channel. It wasn't Google who put this video out.
/r/MensRights01/01/19 08:20 PM
6

Well at least you're consistent, even if you are morally wrong.
/r/MensRights29/12/18 02:26 AM
1

I think you're maybe misunderstanding my comment, or I didn't phrase it correctly. Reports are never empty. There's something in them, even if it's just the statement of the accuser. There's likely some other evidence as well. It may not have been enough to have gone to trial the first time, but when combined with other evidence from other cases maybe it's enough to form a pattern of behavior and establish an MO. That could give investigators the information they need to look elsewhere and estab…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 06:55 PM
1

Nah, I'm good. Thanks. I've seen your attempt at logic. It's retarded.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:46 PM
2

Defamation is the making of a false statement you need to prove the statement false first genius
/r/MensRights28/12/18 05:19 PM
3

Yea... so we have evidence that the school acted inappropriately and punished him absent evidence. Got it. And I agree, the school SHOULD NOT have done that. Take that up with the school. It sounds like he already did that, but I think that settlement is far to low for what they did. Here's what we don't have evidence of - that she made the accusations up and that they're false. If you want to call the accusations false, or you want to punish her, you're going to need to provide evidence that sh…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 02:32 PM
2

So I think we agree on your last point. Absent corroborating evidence there shouldn't be a defense, because there shouldn't be an indictment and there shouldn't be a trial. An accusation alone should not be enough to prosecute someone, and if they are being prosecuted absent evidence that's a problem with the prosecutor. Sue them. It's going to be a lot easier to prove they charged you without evidence and they actually have the means to pay you. Now, to address your first point. Whether or not …
/r/MensRights28/12/18 01:34 PM
6

Yea, it could be. It could also be she's the victim of his evil ways but he was smart enough or lucky enough not to leave evidence. That's the thing. It could be either or, and an objective person would say "absent evidence we don't know"
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:54 PM
5

Then we have a problem with everyone who rushed to her aid. I agree, this is a societal problem. We don't solve this by punishing people who make, possibly truthful, accusations absent corroborating evidence. We solve this by punishing those who act on accusations absent corroborating evidence. Namely the police, prosecution, and shitty college administrators. If there isn't enough evidence to indict, they shouldn't be indicted. Now, if there's exculpatory evidence that proves the accusation fal…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:49 PM
5

We don't know, one way or the other, if she is a victim of not. That's the point.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:37 PM
6

Or we could realize as a society that absent enough evidence to indict, we shouldn't, you know, actually indict them. That's a problem we need to solve with law enforcement, prosecution, and shitty college administrators. We should also indict, convict, and punish people who have been proven to make false accusations. But it certainly does not mean that someone who's been sexually assaulted, who does not have evidence of their assault, shouldn't report the assault.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 12:33 PM
-4

I honestly find it astonishing. I've gotten into long arguments about it here in the recent past. It's a completely foreign concept to some people.
/r/MensRights28/12/18 02:15 AM
65

In the end the woman gets away free and clear, I don't see a reason why she shouldn't be named from what was said. If anything she should be sued as well. No. She shouldn't. Not unless it can be shown she made a false accusation. False accusations are different than unsubstantiated accusations or accusations without evidence. I agree that he shouldn't have been named or punished absent evidence, but two wrongs don't make a right. Let's focus on correcting the wrongs rather than "making the wrong…
/r/MensRights28/12/18 01:07 AM
7

I would say the large majority here are actually assuming he did nothing wrong and the women lied to get a promotion I would agree that that behavior is just as wrong
/r/MensRights27/12/18 04:57 PM
1

Sure. And this person is assuming guilt before proof and has consistently called the guy a perv throughout these comments. They aren't arguing in good faith either. Also, some people are just asking if the allegations are true. That's not making an assumption.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 04:43 PM
25

What makes you think they're telling the truth? At this point we have no evidence either way.
/r/MensRights27/12/18 03:18 PM
1

zero chance it cleared anything Well. It didn't. See his reply. I'm honestly dumbfounded someone is this retarded.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 08:14 PM
1

Everything you just said is wrong. I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I can only conclude you are retarded and it's a waste of time to further engage you. I hope, some day, you can bring yourself to pull your head out of your ass. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 08:13 PM
1

It's OK. I'm using my "feminist lawyer" legalese. No doubt he can see right through it!
/r/MensRights19/12/18 05:13 PM
3

You seem to be misinterpreting what was written. There are two separate issues being discussed here. You want to focus on the burden of proof of proving the allegations true. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the burden of proof of proving the allegations false. They are not the same thing yet you seem to be falsely conflating the two. This is where reading comprehension would come in handy. To the first issue - no one, including myself, is claiming the accused needs to prove they a…
/r/MensRights19/12/18 04:47 PM
8

It is never the legal responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. I never claimed it was. You need to work on your reading comprehension. You can read some other replies to comments here for more context if you need it.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:22 PM
2

The subject of this conversation does not concern his innocence. It concerns whether or not the allegations are false. Edit: and, yes, absence of proof does mean the allegations are false lol No. It doesn't. That's the point. Making false allegations is itself a crime. If you're going to accuse someone of that, you need to prove it, because guess what, they're innocent until proven guilty as well. Absent evidence we as third parties can't know what actually happened. All we can ask is "is there …
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:20 PM
12

they need to be proven true beyond the benefit of a doubt. In order to establish guilt, yes, they need to be proven true. They don't have to be provably false In order to be called "false allegations" they do. As stated, there's a difference between unsubstantiated allegations and false allegations. Is this really a hard concept for you? It's impossible to prove that something did not happen Bullshit.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:09 PM
10

My comment was broadly about how accusations work and the difference between unsubstantiated allegations and false allegations in general. I wasn't speaking specifically about this case, but thanks for the clarification.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:01 PM
7

Yes, I said that. But I didn't say what I assume you think I said. As another user so succinctly put... Unsubstantiated Allegations are very different from False Allegations. All allegations are unsubstantiated until proven true or false. You aren't guilty unless the allegations are proven true. But we also don't know the allegations are false unless they are proven false. There are situations where people are guilty, yet they go free because the burden off proof could not be met.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:54 PM
4

Thank you for putting that in more succinct and understandable terms than I was able to.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:45 PM
6

No shit. Nothing in my comment says anything different than that.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:39 PM
10

I'm discussing how our criminal justice system is "supposed" to work and the philosophy behind it. If you can't tell the difference between a crime occurring absent verifiable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and making a false allegation I'm not sure there's a whole lot to be gained by furthering the discussion.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:14 PM
40

Yes, the burden of proof is on the accuser, but the absence of proof does not mean the allegations are false. Sometimes there just isn't proof, one way or the other, and we're left with he said/she said. In that situation those allegations are just allegations and they're going to stay allegations absent new information. However, when someone qualifies those allegations as false, they are now making a new allegation about the initial allegations. The burden of proof - of proving the allegations …
/r/MensRights19/12/18 02:03 PM
8

I mean, humans generally are better off not in isolation. We psychologically need a connection/relationship to someone or maybe something. I don't think anyone's going to argue that a real relationship with another human wouldn't be fundamentally better, but is an imagined relationship with an anthropomorphic inanimate object less mentally healthy than no relationship with anything at all?
/r/MensRights06/12/18 03:24 PM
8

Why on earth would it do that? If someone isn't making a false accusation "Something something women are scared fragile creatures". The soft bigotry of low expectations - something most feminists share.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 01:12 PM
26

Or someone who speaks English as a second language considering this is an argument taking place in the EU and linked sources are in French. All things considered, they have a better command of the English language than most native speakers do, just take a tour of any inner city public school in America for confirmation.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 01:48 PM
1

thanks
/r/MensRights15/11/18 02:55 PM
2

bts?
/r/MensRights15/11/18 02:36 AM
514

What the fuck Hamill?
/r/MensRights14/11/18 10:24 PM
6

McCaskill is actually more of a moderate No, she's not. She just lied about her positions to get elected as she and her campaign staff admitted prior to the election in undercover videos and she reiterated in her concession speech last night. https://youtu.be/6_CvdDl2qK8?t=320
/r/MensRights07/11/18 04:11 PM
2

so edgy
/r/MensRights23/10/18 12:00 AM
3

Anyone have access to the full poll?
/r/MensRights03/10/18 03:16 PM
16

Yes... they do that quiet often. I don't think they realize how hypocritical it is.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 05:53 PM
26

On the left is a prey animal, on the right are predator and scavanger animals. Predators attack prey, regardless of what they tell their scavenger friends - at least that's the point I think the artist is intending to make. It's commentary on the artist interpretation of the Kavanaugh confirmation process thus far. Although I have to agree with the above commenter, the deer isn't dead, which means it likely wasn't attacked. The artist didn't do a very good job conveying their opinion.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 04:57 PM
4

"These tenets" and "They" are referring to the "presumption of innocence" and "due process". I don't know how that isn't clear given the context of the discussion when "trial" and "central tenets on which our society is based" are mentioned. They're also in the title of the damn post and are the subject of most of the comments here. You must be utterly obtuse not to know what was being talked about, but sure, I can try to be more precise in the future.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 01:47 PM
11

and probably guilty of At this point, there is literally no evidence to support that. "I support Men's Rights, unless the man is someone I politically disagree with"
/r/MensRights27/09/18 01:32 PM
6

Investigating claims to determine truthfulness ruins the sanctity of the court? Yea, I didn't say anything even remotely close to that There should be nothing appalling about a logical investigation being conducted. Again. I didn't say that. This is what I was responding too when I said it was appalling However, regardless of the merits of the claims, someone with so much controversy around them is overall bad for the courts. Regardless of the merits of the claims, this person thinks the confirm…
/r/MensRights27/09/18 01:26 PM
8

Completely disagree. These tenets aren't just applicable to the court of law. They are fundamental to the foundations on which our entire society is based. Allowing completely unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and politically motivated accusations to influence our highest court in such a way is appalling.
/r/MensRights27/09/18 01:12 PM
1

No reason to be sorry, It's ambiguous what the 15 years was referring too. It could have been either the accusation or the rape. Hence why English is hard. It only becomes clear what the subject of the 15 years was when applying other context to the statement.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 05:43 PM
6

The father wasn't accused of raping the daughter for 15 years, he was accused for 15 years of raping the daughter. The subject of the 15 years is the accusations, not the raping. English is sometimes hard. The alleged rape(s) happened at least 15 years ago and for the past 15 years the mother has been telling the daughter she was raped by her father as a small child/toddler/baby. The step dad probably came into the picture sometime after the initial allegation 15 years ago.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 05:36 PM
9

You're wrong. The father isn't accused of raping the girl for 15 years. He was accused for 15 years of raping the girl. In other words, the alleged rape happened once or multiple times 15 years ago. And for the past 15 years since, the mother has been telling the daughter that her father raped her.
/r/MensRights21/06/18 05:32 PM
2

Well... some of us think telecoms should be regulated by the government and treated like a utility. Telecommunication lines are infrastructure like roads. They were mostly paid for with via tax payer subsidies, they run over public easements, they should not be owned or run by private entities.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 01:56 PM
9

No, it doesn't. It might have a "chilling effect" on saying that particular thing on that particular platform. But it doesn't do a damn thing to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right intrinsic to a person. You have the freedom to say what you want and no one, including the government, can take that away from you. What you don't have is the right to make people listen to you or the right to make people, or corporations via their stage or software, give you a pulpit from which to say…
/r/MensRights18/05/18 12:58 PM
15

"can and should" is different than "must by law". I agree that anti free speech social media companies are bullshit (including reddit), however, under existing law they have a right to ban people they don't like. I also think it's dangerous for a government to regulate a private company telling them what they or their users can or can't say... that, in and of itself, is also anti free speech. You have a right to say whatever the hell you want, short of fallaciously yelling "fire" in a crowded th…
/r/MensRights18/05/18 11:32 AM
3

If Facebook or Google blocks search results to certain groups or sites If? They already do.
/r/MensRights18/05/18 11:31 AM
588

Somebody read their Greek mythology a little too literally.
/r/MensRights02/05/18 12:29 PM
9

That's as honest as saying feminists fight for the right to murder theirs... Well, actually that's true for some of them.
/r/MensRights08/04/18 11:23 AM
4

im just saying if youre as hot as katy perry there arent many people who WOULDNT want to be groped by her. Does that matter? It shouldn't.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 12:44 PM
-2

200% huh?
/r/MensRights31/01/18 03:33 PM
10

Philosophical razors are poor explanations of reality.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 05:23 PM
1

How was the insemination done?
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:58 PM
11

That's not a positive affect for anyone involved.
/r/MensRights10/12/17 05:56 PM
2

I think the era you describe was a brief one when considering all of history, and I very much believe it is over. Women are no longer, by any means, considered second class citizens in today's western societies. Some societies still have problems, but for the moment I'm ignoring them for the sake of this conversation. I think in today's society, for generations just starting out and some well on their way, women have just as much opportunity as men and are often encouraged more than men to seize…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 08:19 PM
2

I think it's naive to think the vast majority of both men and women weren't oppressed throughout history. Until very recently, only nobility had what can be considered good, non oppressed, lives. Being forced into servitude tending fields, workings mines, conscripted into armies isn't being oppressed? And let's not pretend it was just noble men who wielded power or enjoyed privilege. There are plenty of queens throughout history who ruled just as mercilessly as your most oppressive kings. Throug…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 07:21 PM
3

I don't really accept the premise of your question. I don't believe it's an either one or the other thing so I'm going to treat it as two separate questions if that's OK. do you think men are discriminated against more than women I don't think it's a matter of who is discriminated against more or playing a game of which group is a the bigger victim. There are way to many factors at play to come up with an objective truth. By what metrics are we defining "discriminated against"? Are we talking ab…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 06:50 PM
5

Yes, there are plenty who disagree and that is reassuring, however it doesn't refute the original point which is that there are prominent feminists who do agree with this, which is what you originally asked for evidence of. My intent here is not to state something ridiculous like "all feminist are evil". It's just to show that inside the movement there are problems. As you've stated elsewhere in another comment to me, which I'd like to consolidate those conversations here, there are problems in …
/r/MensRights21/11/17 04:25 PM
2

I've already linked you a direct quote else where in this thread from Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it's best to continue the conversation there so we don't continue to repeat ourselves?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 04:24 PM
2

I don't know if it's a prevailing opinion. I haven't seen a survey done of your average every day feminists that ask that question. All I know is it's the opinion of prominent feminist who are held up in popular culture as thought leaders of the movement and who have vast influence and reach. Until these types of people are staunchly disavowed and fall out of favor of popular culture, it's hard not see their opinions and influence as representative of the whole.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 03:10 PM
15

While we can both agree on your first point, there are a whole bunch of prominent feminists who don't. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-hillary-clinton-to-be-celebrated-with-1508524215-htmlstory.html
/r/MensRights21/11/17 03:03 PM
3

The argument isn't that there aren't male gender roles, the argument was that some people believe only women can be victims of gender roles.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:22 PM
23

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. [...] -Hillary Clinton, 1998 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#White_House_years_.281993.E2.80.932000.29
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:20 PM
21

Ah yes, did they contact the head feminist? The one in charge of all feminism? I understand you're being absurd on purpose, but to pretend there aren't prominent feminsist's, who are considered "thought leaders" in their movement, that don't feel this way about gender equality is even more absurd. Make a group involving men and women, that focuses on issues for both. Don't bake two cakes and them smash them together after they're done expecting it to turn out well. We just need a gender equality…
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:13 PM
9

What the fuck is wrong with people?
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:03 PM
0

You'd have to ask the reddit admins. But I'm pretty sure they've already given an answer. If you aren't satisfied with that answer take it up with them.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 12:13 PM
0

So what is the argument you are making? Because that's unclear. Are you somehow trying to suggest it's my, or the collective reddit's, responsibility to encourage violent idiots to no longer be violent idiots?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:52 PM
0

It was ambiguous, hence why I included [...] my, or reddit's, [...] which covers both the collective and personal "you". Although, I wasn't involved in the decision to ban the community, so I'm not sure why you used either form of "you". You could have said "they" and it would have made more sense... but whatever, I'm just following your lead here.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:46 PM
1

Indeed, but did you encourage them to do that or validate their beliefs that everyone is just out to get them?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:19 PM
-2

Is it my, or reddit's, job to encourage them to do anything?
/r/MensRights13/11/17 07:13 PM
3

The only way they're going to become better people is if they choose and work towards becoming better people. I believe they have every right to associate with who they want to and to believe what they want to. I also believe reddit has a right to deny them a platform on their site and servers to do so.
/r/MensRights13/11/17 06:57 PM
9

I'll agree that it's impossible to rule out astroturfing. However, I'm of the opinion that when you have a bunch of bitter and angry individuals who lock themselves in an echo-chamber of confirmation bias and self-victimization, where any dissenting or outside opinion is banned/expelled, the community tends to self radicalize. The people who posted over there don't have shitty lives because of their looks or their socio-economic status. They have shitty lives because they have shitty personaliti…
/r/MensRights13/11/17 03:57 PM
56

Are you suggesting the problem with r/incels was troll accounts and not bitter, angry, and socially inept individuals? There are healthy ways to express yourself, and then there are ways that... aren't. Let's not pretend that people who practice the former don't exist. Edit: I guess you are. Hint: we can discuss problems males have without "criticizing women". If you want to criticize specific individuals, actions, or ideas by all means, go right ahead. That's healthy. Criticizing whole genders …
/r/MensRights13/11/17 03:17 PM
0

You're venturing into /r/iamverysmart territory. There's some truth to what both of you are saying. Let's stop calling each other names.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 07:22 PM
3

Very well stated
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:32 PM
1

I upvoted both of you in this conversation. You're both correct. This post is racist, divisive, bullshit and doesn't belong here. That being said, I could have addressed that in a more constructive manner.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 02:20 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights28/09/17 03:07 AM
2

Sure... but where is any of that present in this show?
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:24 AM
-1

So is anyone going to point out actual examples of misandry?
/r/MensRights28/09/17 01:14 AM
1

Who the fuck cares? Trumps a piece of shit. None of that has anything to do with mens rights. If you wanna whine about your god emperor do it somewhere else.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 11:48 PM
4

... So you're not going to actually point out instances of misandry or evidence of a war on men in this show? Because two women talking about something other than a man does not a war on men make.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 11:41 PM
0

I can't help but wonder what your reaction would be had you watched the original series episode with the first interracial kiss on television when it first aired. The Star Trek franchise has a long history of being progressive. I'm still waiting for you to point out where actual misandry exists in this show. Passing the bechdel test, and having a diverse cast (filled with both men and women) is not misandry.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 08:41 PM
3

That was a very clever and thought out insult. Good one!
/r/MensRights27/09/17 07:39 PM
2

I'm on the Internets all the time. This is the first I've heard of this 'controversy', but then again I don't usually venture into SJW hell holes. That being said, perhaps I should delay judgement until I've seen the actual show. My initial comment however was in response to the linked video and having watched that video, I don't believe they adequately backed up their claims. Women being in a show, and having a more diverse cast is not, in and of itself, inherently misandrist.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 07:33 PM
6

How? To be fair, I haven't had a chance to catch the show (so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about something) but the linked videos complaints are... 1. it passes the bechdel test OK, that's important to men's rights because? 2. there are two female leads again, who the fuck cares? 3. not a lot of white males in the crew Since I haven't seen an episode this one is hard to comment on but having looked at the cast list on IMDB, there are a bunch of males listed there. They may not all be of …
/r/MensRights27/09/17 07:07 PM
2

... yea, this crap doesn't belong here. It's got literally nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights27/09/17 06:26 PM
15

I dunno. Scaphism sounds pretty damn awful, although the guy above left out a few steps.
/r/MensRights21/09/17 01:20 PM
3

I know plenty of guys who keep their own "lists" and no one gives a shit just as no one should give a shit about what this girl is doing. This has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights01/09/17 01:34 AM
7

concern trolling I despise that term. It's just another made up term morons (on both sides) use to shut down discussions and dismiss legitimate critique or opposing opinions.
/r/MensRights28/08/17 02:40 PM
1

Romeo and Juliet laws are a thing. Two kids mutually having sex with each other is different than a grown man raping a 12 year old into a coma. If you can't see that then there's something wrong with you. At this point it seems your argument is mostly semantic. The English language is imperfect. I can't help what society has come to colloquially call something. Also, no laws are perfect. They're just what we've collectively been able to come up with thus far. If you don't like that, then do some…
/r/MensRights17/07/17 11:18 AM
1

Is that a serious question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape ... she was 12 years old, that's well below the age of consent. Also, "she wanted it" and her actually "wanting it" are two completely different things. Furthermore, even if she was of legal age to give consent (which she wasn't) and she really did initially "want it" (which she didn't), it's quite easy to assume consent would have been removed during the time when the assailant was brutally assaulting her enough to put her…
/r/MensRights16/07/17 02:51 PM
3

TIL Thanks
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:53 PM
16

The study costs $20
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:19 PM
2

OK... that goes a bit further than what's been mentioned thus far in this thread. Is there any specific context to what specific age range he's referring too when he says "young boys".
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:15 PM
10

People should be able to defend themselves against rape charges. But when a lawyer slut shames and bullies a 12 year old rape victim who was raped into a coma allegedly by the lawyers defendant we, the public, are allowed to judge that lawyers actions and hold them accountable to them. Saying a 12 year old "wanted it" might be a viable legal defense in your eyes, but for the rest of humanity it's just fucking disgusting behaviour. Doesn't mean the defendant isn't entitled to it, but I sure as fu…
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:09 PM
5

His statement does not condone statutory rape.
/r/MensRights13/07/17 06:00 PM
2

That and witness accounts. I agree, I wish there was a better way. I have a friend who went through this a while back. They were at a party. The got drunk. They had sex. Her friends made fun of her the next day and she regretted it. She later said it was rape and he was arrested. His name was spread all over regional news. Either charges were eventually dropped or he took a plea, I'm not sure what happened, he fell off the face of planet afterwords. Doesn't matter either way. The damage was done…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 03:25 PM
2

You can argue slippery slope if you want, but the law is clear. Getting wasted doesn't mean you're down to fuck, but it also doesn't give you privilege of making bad life choices and then ruining someones life after the fact because you regretted it in the morning. No law is going to be perfect in this regard. As always, cases that present in a grey area are going to be decided on a case by case basis by a jury of your peers. Hopefully they can rightfully determine if an individual was aware or …
/r/MensRights07/07/17 02:38 PM
2

Right, this defines what removes the ability for a complainant to give consent. Since voluntarily drugging yourself and remaining conscious and aware of what is happening isn't listed than it's not a scenario defined under law in which a complainant is unable to give consent. If she gave consent to have intercourse in such a scenario then she gave consent. She can't come back a week or a month later, after the relationship hasn't worked out, and say "I was drunk, i wasn't able to give consent, h…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 02:02 PM
4

Ha... well played. I'm leaving it for posterity.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 01:04 PM
159

Luckily she lives in PA, which has sensible consent laws. A person is guilty of indecent assault if the person has indecent contact with the complainant, causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person or intentionally causes the complainant to come into contact with seminal fluid, urine or feces for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and: the person does so without the complainant's consent; the person does so by forcible compulsion; the perso…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 03:57 AM
25

While I 100% agree with the sentiment I know that toddlers are surprisingly fast. Yes, as an attentive parent you should be keeping track of them, but we're only human and as such we make mistakes like getting temporarily distracted. In that short amount of time the kid can take off and be gone before you know it. That however doesn't give you an excuse to claim that the first person your kid comes in contact with who tries to help is a pedophile and child abductor... the chances of that are ast…
/r/MensRights27/06/17 02:30 PM
16

Philadelphia apparently, if you consider 2011 close enough to 'today'.
/r/MensRights05/06/17 11:35 PM
19

"dreamworks smirk"... Felt the same same way, just didn't realize it had a name.
/r/MensRights06/04/17 01:33 PM
1

You have a fair point that idle groups that mean well don't often accomplish much, I'll concede to that. But activism doesn't have to mean militant. MLK vs Malcolm X if you will. Progress can be accomplished without stepping on the rights of others, and this is a cause for concern over some people in the feminist movement. I'd really like to believe it's just the fringe extremists that feel that way, but I feel it's becoming more generally accepted than you'd like to admit, or perhaps that's jus…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 04:30 AM
3

Hey, glad to see your back, hope you slept well. it would be far more accurate to describe men's rights as the crazy misogynists who want to ban women from the workforce or remove female suffrage etc. ... you're joking, right? For the same reason you are on a subreddit called "men's rights". That's not really reason, nor is it an answer to my question. I'm here because I'm engaging in a conversation. I don't consider myself a men's rights activist anymore than I consider myself a feminist. I con…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 03:40 AM
1

Yes ... I could expand, but I don't think anything more needs to be said. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 06:17 PM
3

Some parts of your comment are confusing me so I might require some clarification. The premise of my argument was that wealth and class were the defining characterizations of privilege. It didn't matter if you were white or if you were a man. If you didn't have wealth society considered you as worthless as anyone else. If you did have wealth, society didn't care what your race or gender was. That sentiment still rings true today to some extent. I don't think egalitarianism fights against the opp…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 06:00 PM
10

It wasn't just some men, historically speaking, most men were treated as second class citizens as well, indentured to the fields or the mines, conscripted and used as cannon fodder in wars they didn't believe in... This was happening as recently as the 1960's in this nation. Voting rights used to be based on land ownership and not race or sex, women and people of color could vote in most northern states provided they owned land, it was only in 1856 that non land owning white men were allowed to …
/r/MensRights01/03/17 05:11 PM
6

Women give children up for adoption all the time without the father even knowing the child exists. All she has to do is say she doesn't know who the father is or that he's out of the picture. That may technically not be legal, but there's no questions asked, there's no follow up, no one ever tracks the father down to ask for his consent. Yes, anyone can lie. The difference is women aren't held financially liable for a child they do not want. They have options out of the situation, men do not. Al…
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:52 PM
18

A man has a right to take their child from it's mother absent her consent and put it up for adoption? I wasn't aware of that. Interesting. If the claims are utterly unjustified you shouldn't have any problem proving them wrong. I'll ask my question again because you didn't respond. If the goal of feminism truly is equality, rather than female privilege, why cling to such an archaic term rooted in sexist partisanism? Why not just one unifying movement working towards egalitarianism?
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:15 PM
2

I get the sentiment of what you're saying, and I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I think there's a bit of a difference. ALM isn't a movement, it's just an arguably dismissive response to BLM. Overreach of authoritarian power and police brutality is a real problem, that does affect everyone (if not minorities more predominately), but ALM doesn't seem at all interested in actually solving that problem. If ALM actually did address these issues, for everyone, I think the comparison would be …
/r/MensRights01/03/17 04:02 PM
27

I mean, you're not wrong, but you're being disingenuous. I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect sources or supporting arguments in a media format such as this. Pieces such as these are designed to spread a message. It's akin to a mailer or billboard. Spread the idea, if people are interested in the message they'll look up the supporting information on they're own. This should probably have a URL at the bottom of it where people can find accompanying information but people aren't helpless, they …
/r/MensRights01/03/17 03:39 PM
13

Why can't we all just be egalitarians everywhere? Why do feminists insist on clinging to the archaic title of feminism?
/r/MensRights01/03/17 03:13 PM
3

No, that's how some of them actually respond.
/r/MensRights01/03/17 03:09 PM
1

Uh huh. What's your point? That's got nothing to do with the little tantrum you threw yesterday morning a few posts up.
/r/MensRights28/01/17 02:03 PM
1

I thought the redpillers start out as 'friendzoned nice guys'
/r/MensRights28/01/17 12:59 AM
1

Let me guess... You're one of the 'nice guys' that can never get the girl, yet it has nothing to do with the fact that you're 300+ lbs with horrible hygiene. It's got everything to do with the fact that ALL women are gold digging shallow cunts that you don't have any time for. You're much to busy catching up on all the new anime and re watching my little pony for the 30th time. So edgy. See, stereotyping people off shitty and unfounded prejudices isn't very nice, is it?
/r/MensRights27/01/17 03:47 PM
0

You might want to look up the definition of "coercion" and "duress". They apply.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:40 PM
1

Dude... you need to get the hell out of whatever cesspool of an echochamber you hide in and spend some time in the real world. The vast VAST VAST majority of people act in no way like what you just described. Are there hyperextemeist asshats out there? Sure, they do exist, but they exist on both sides friend, and you're one of them.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 02:37 PM
27

I'd prefer we just get rid of it
/r/MensRights28/10/16 05:53 PM
6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaphism
/r/MensRights27/10/16 08:47 PM
1

It's got nothing to do with aspirations. It's more to do with our overcrowded prisons, lack of rehabilitative services, rampant drug use among the prison population, and lack of any real career prospectus when they get out. There's a reason our recidivism rate is so high. Prisons don't reform, they make better criminals.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 11:45 PM
1

you still have not addressed how this lenient sentences are not going to serve as cover up strategy for people that might be considering committing a murder irrespective of the ethical question, precisely those people you said need to be locked away to protect society. That's why we have detectives, investigations, and trials. I wasn't justifying leniency, I was commenting in response to what I perceived to be an argument that she wasn't getting a harsh enough sentence, e.g. she should get more …
/r/MensRights18/10/16 08:31 PM
1

I don't think the rest of society would have the same reaction if the genders were reversed as well. This I don't disagree with, we as a society still have a long way to go. As for the rest of it, you can take me at my word or not, it really makes no difference to me. Although, I'm having a hard time understanding why it's so hard for you to believe I actually DO have egalitarian beliefs rather than just claiming I do? It's not projection, is it?
/r/MensRights18/10/16 07:15 PM
1

As far as protecting society from sociopaths and psychopaths, see your original Reason 1. Those are precisely the type of people that would need to be locked away to protect society. Please understand, advocating for Restorative Justice as opposed to Punitive or Retributive Justice is not advocating for no consequences for crimes what so ever, it's just advocating for different consequences, when applicable, than purely just punitive.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 07:04 PM
1

Interesting article and study. However I do see an issue with it. It only addresses recidivism of people who have already been in prison, and doesn't include people who haven't. I'd theorize that there would be a behavioral difference between people who have already been to jail and know they can fuck up, be caught, and be punished and people who have thus far gone through life ignorant of the own fallibility, thinking "oh that'll never happen to me, I can read my phone while driving and not get…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 06:20 PM
1

However, putting the distracted driver (man or woman, it doesn't matter) in jail solves nothing. I already did. I said it doesn't matter the sex of the perpetrator, it was my intention to imply victim as well, but I understand that wasn't explicitly stated. I honestly don't believe that gender should matter in either instance. This is the ideal way I'd like society to function, I understand we're a long way off from that, but there's no reason not to advocate for it. Edit: I edited my original c…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 05:33 PM
1

The fact that this man died is a horrible tragedy. However, putting the distracted driver (man or woman, it doesn't matter) in jail solves nothing. It doesn't bring the victim back. It won't alleviate their loved ones grief and suffering. It won't serve as a deterrent for other people not to do it. If possibly killing someone isn't enough of a deterrent to stop someone from distracted driving, possible jail time won't be enough of a deterrent either. The ONLY thing locking them up will accomplis…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 05:21 PM
3

I don't believe in deterrents. I don't think they work. If possibly killing someone isn't enough of a deterrent to stop someone from distracted driving, then possibly going to jail or having your wages garnished isn't going to be enough of a deterrent either. Restorative justice makes more sense to me in these situations, it's not about deterrents, it's about 'making it up' to the victim, community, and society at large.
/r/MensRights18/10/16 05:09 PM
4

I only addressed what you call reason 1 because I believe that's the only legitimate reason to send someone to jail. Someone should only be removed from society if and when they are determined to be too dangerous to remain in it. For all other instances of injustice I'd much prefer corrective or restorative justice rather than punitive or retributive justice. An eye for an eye helps no one. If possibly killing someone isn't enough of a deterrent to stop you from distracted driving, then possibly…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 05:01 PM
16

Intent and remorse are important in these cases though. Did she intend to kill the Nanny? Did this lady intend to kill the man? If they didn't then I don't see much benefit gained by wasting resources locking them away for a long time. They don't pose much of a threat to society solely by existing in it. I'm not so sure they should be allowed to drive anymore, and their license should probably be revoked, but locking them away doesn't do anyone any good. If the argument here is that men are give…
/r/MensRights18/10/16 02:01 PM
5

First of all, I didn't downvote you. Second, it seemed from your comment that you were being intentionally imperceptive or obtuse to make a point. If not, and you truly are just ignorant of the intended relation, then fair enough. I'll see if I can explain. There is a semi popular notion, especially here on reddit, that there are at least some feminists, especially radical ones, that think all men are rapists and that all sex is rape. Expanding on that, there is a notion that some feminists and …
/r/MensRights22/09/16 08:02 PM
8

But I don't understand the the prosecutors = feminist bit. Would you mind expanding? Nothing to explain, they didn't say "prosecutors = feminist". They said (and I'm going to move the words around a little bit so you can understand better)... the goal of feminist is to get as many convictions as [they] can without regard for guilt You can agree with that or disagree with that all you want, but let's stop with the ridiculous "I don't understand, could you explain what you mean" bullshit you've be…
/r/MensRights22/09/16 07:17 PM
4

The question is ambiguous, but it seems the differentiator is the color of the hair and not the sex. By making it about blonde people the initial question excludes 84% of the female population and only 50.4% of the blond male population (assuming hair color distribution is equal across sexes). This is more an example of racism (or hairism?) than it is an example of sexism.
/r/MensRights24/06/16 07:52 PM
9

To be fair its (mostly) happening after they've hit puberty.
/r/MensRights18/06/16 10:51 AM
6

It had a purpose in the past, sure. And it has a purpose now. Those purposes were never about equality though.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 07:48 PM
1

that you should have to prove that the father is an unfit parent before you take away his kids I agree with this. I don't agree we should hate on would-be adoptive parents who want 'same-race infant' children or that adoption agencies are 'baby mills'.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:41 PM
2

I was not making a strawman argument or changing the goal posts. If that was the intent of your original comment, it was NOT clear to me. Again, perhaps I misread or misinterpreted your intent but upon reviewing the tone and content of your other comments I'm not sure I did. You are clearly hostile and prejudiced to anyone who would dare to want to adopt an infant or anyone who would consider putting a child up for adoption in lieu of abortion.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:32 PM
1

You cannot shift the burden of proof onto a father after you have violated his parental rights. [...] If you think that a father is an unfit parent, then you should make sure this is proven before you adopt his child. When did I ever say anything to the contrary. I was discussing one particular sentence you said that I disagree with. You said, and I'll quote again. I would pick a biological father [regardless of whether they are a fit parent or not] over these [women who want to adopt, but only …
/r/MensRights24/11/15 06:36 PM
1

I don't disagree with anything you said. My comment had nothing to do with this case imparticular. I was simply stating some fathers are not fit to raise their children, regardless of the would-be adoptive parents motivations. The commenter I replied to said they'd pick any biological father ("any" includes destitute and abusive fathers as well) over women who are adopting because 'they don't want to lose their girlish figure'. In my opinion not wanting to lose their girlish figure does a hell o…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 05:28 PM
-10

I would pick a biological father over these kinds of adoptive parents any day. I'm all for advancing paternal rights but blanket statements like this have no business here. There are absolutely biological fathers out there that have no business being in their children's lives. Edit: Seriously? Why the down votes? This idiot said he'd pick any biological father (regardless of whether or not they were actually a fit parent capable of raising a child) over someone who wants to adopt an infant. Ther…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 04:42 PM
3

A university group should protect its students from unwarranted ideological challenges False. Ideological challenges are EXACTLY what a university and academia in general are for. Read any universities mission statement. You're going to find verbiage to the affect of "We are absolutely committed to freedom of inquiry—the freedom to think, to question, to criticize, and to dissent. " - University of Miami. If it weren't for ideological challenges we'd still be living in a world where men had mult…
/r/MensRights08/11/15 02:15 PM
12

How you're doing
/r/seduction03/11/15 05:21 PM
4

and how to stay alpha? Grow the fuck up. Nobody with any level of self confidence considers themselves 'alpha' or strives to be 'alpha'... 'alpha' is something Bros with no life experience or self esteem think they have because their the 'tough guy that gets all the girls'. It's fucking bullshit and a giant farce. You want real self confidence? That's something you gain through self awareness, life experience, and bettering yourself. Better yourself in education, fitness, hobbies, passions. Broa…
/r/seduction21/07/15 04:55 PM
4

If I texted the girl I love you and she responded with good bye, me next text would be "I hate you! Delete my number and never call me again." In two days "I was only kidding. Let's go get some ice cream" ... this, kids, is how your text conversations end up on /r/cringepics
/r/seduction02/07/15 01:46 PM
3

To be fair, your experience is purely anecdotal as well. We need some statistics up in here to have any 'real' discussion on what happens to sex offenders in prison.
/r/MensRights11/06/15 08:22 PM
5

I would have assumed "incapacitated" in the context of alcohol would mean you're outright passed out or at the very least going in and out of consciousness. I'm not sure about the law in all states. But at least here in NY that is the case. Intoxicated does not mean incapacitated. Someone who is intoxicated, via alcohol or drugs, that they knowingly and willingly consumed, is still capable of giving consent. You are only incapable of giving consent when incapacitated (unconscious) or you were un…
/r/MensRights03/06/15 03:04 PM
17

But is it really paranoia? The website is "GoRedForWomen.org". Why? Why isn't it just "GoRedForHeartDisease.org". Why do they have to make it gender specific?
/r/MensRights12/02/15 04:52 PM
1

Generally speaking, yes, as a society we would be better off rehabilitating those who can be rehabilitated. I don't think a lot of people will disagree with you on that. I think what a lot of people are disagreeing with is the notion that this kid 'could' have been rehabilitated in the first place, like the rehabilitation comments are suggesting.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 05:39 PM
3

Could somebody explain what the hell is going on here. It's like everyone in the comments knows some secret information that I'm not privy too. Who the fuck is phil fish? What the hell is a 'quinnspiracy'? What does any of that have to do with this guy at a wedding?
/r/MensRights26/08/14 03:14 PM
2

This is an absolutely horrible response. If you disagree with something somebody said, you need to point out why, not just say "bullshit". Otherwise nobody will take anything you say seriously.
/r/MensRights24/06/14 01:16 PM
2

He never said he wasn't attracted to her physically, just that he wasn't attracted to her. In what other way are you reading this where you don't think he meant he wasn't physically attracted. "Physically" is pretty much the default subject for attractive, unless it's otherwise specified. "I found her attractive" means the same thing as "I found her physically attractive" means the same thing as "I thought she was hot". "I found her intellectually attractive" means something else, but in this ca…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 05:41 PM
0

Nope, that's pretty much exactly what they wrote. If you misunderstood their intended meaning then so did I. Honestly, I can't imagine a different intended meaning given that statement.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 03:14 PM
0

A vehicle doesn't just up and decide to crash into another causing an accident. It just sometimes happens because of circumstance and/or human error. Right, because road rage is a made up thing and psychotic pissed off people have never chased down and tried to run over the person they're pissed off at.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 01:57 PM
0

You get downvoted because people are sick of that quote and don't think its funny. Not because you botched it. Atleast thats how I feel about it.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 12:21 AM
7

She Re-read the blog-post... the author is male. But it wasn’t just macho sports coaches who made jokes like that, and they usually weren’t intended as insults. Well meaning people, when told I had been sick at irregular intervals over the last few days, joked politely about morning sickness and asked when I was due. Mentioning how my body temperature soared suddenly resulted in knowing references to hot flushes and the menopause. These witticisms were intended kindly, to ease the potential emba…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:53 PM
15

No true scotsman...
/r/MensRights29/03/13 06:19 AM
2

I was going on the information provided to me. I know no more than 'some person said "hello" to her', in which case calling the police is a gross over reaction. Obviously with more information the situation and the appropriate response changes. All I ask is people use common sense in response to whatever situation they are presented with.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 09:34 PM
1

I see no contradiction. Is it really so hard to expect people to use common sense? Calling police because someone said 'hello' to you is a hell of a lot more then just an overreaction.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 08:48 PM
6

OK, let's let a fictional TV show dictate our opinion on every similar situation we come across in life. I never said there aren't statistical biological differences of strength and ability between sexes. But there is no reason a girl can't be as good as/if not better than a boy at sports. In this particular case with Paige, she had proven her ability and more than earned her spot on that team. There is no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to play and no reason why another team should refuse t…
/r/MensRights15/05/12 08:40 PM
9

This is really a good idea, I am glad that boys and girls will be on a (literally) equal playing field. In the case of Paige Sultzbach, though, I think they made the right decision forefiting rather than playing with her. It may not be a popular idea but Title IX does not mean girls are as good as boys, not to mention there would likely be a huge lawsuit if her breasts were somehow hit in the game. You realize how much you just contradicted yourself... right? I'm sorry, but sexist comments like …
/r/MensRights15/05/12 08:16 PM
7

Impeachment is just the "formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity". Both Clinton and Johnson were impeached. Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, and Clinton on charges of Perjury. Both were acquitted by the senate and weren't removed from office. However, both were impeached. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:54 PM
5

I'm confused... this is what upset you about the article? Why? It's about the only statement in the article that's actually true.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:18 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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