TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

jianadaren1 Archive

View 0 posts and 155 comments by jianadaren1 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)
0

1) Standards of proof. 2) Lying about somebody to your family is not a crime.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:14 PM
0

This wasn't a criminal case: he sued the complainants for defamation.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:13 PM
1

You're right, but perjury (similar to making false allegations) is extremely rare and tough to prosecute because the evidentiary burdens are so high (you have to prove that the statement was false in any conceivable construction and that the accused knew it was false at the time they said it). I'd feel pretty confident that I wouldn't be prosecuted for making a good faith complaint.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:13 PM
3

Reasonable doubt is not absolute certainty. Precedent makes this clear.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:11 PM
7

Ontario, to its credit, has a history of punishing those who make unfounded allegations of character. In civil matter, Ontario has a "costs" regime whereby the losing party is sometimes forced to pay 60-90% of the winning party's legal bills. One of the factors that determines whether or not the losing party pays 90% (substantial indemnity costs) or 60% (partial indemnity costs) is whether or not the loser made an unsubstantiated allegation of fraud. So in Ontario, the precedent already exists f…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:08 PM
12

rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive ["erotic" rape fantasies are typical "no means yes" where the woman gives a token no even though she is aroused, and wants to proceed with the encounter; "averse" fantasies are where the woman actively resists and wants nothing to do with the encounter] continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive. It's even worse for the feminists - half of the rape fantasies are straight-up stranger in a…
/r/TheRedPill05/08/13 01:44 PM
8

it's the same idiot - Meg Lanker-Simons from UW.
/r/TheRedPill27/07/13 06:59 PM
8

she is 4 months pregnant Be careful. The Red Pill model is geared for nongravid women. Pregnancy brings on a whole slough of hormonal and behaviour changes. Regular RedPill behaviour attracts and calms nongravid women, but repels pregnant women and sends them into a rage.
/r/TheRedPill24/07/13 06:43 PM
1

Hey /u/gurzaak, which edition are you quoting from? Because your except isn't in many releases.
/r/TheRedPill24/07/13 05:05 PM
9

Which are usually other men.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 12:41 AM
3

As a side-piece to your link
/r/MensRights22/07/13 12:23 AM
2

/r/redpillwomen
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 04:49 PM
1

Also younger sisters are likely to be closer in age to your dates.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 03:16 AM
1

Since gender roles play such a small part in overall voter choice I was shocked that there was any effect at all.
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 03:15 AM
1

Ditto - learned RedPill from sister's ridiculous* behaviour ^ *(at least that's what I used to think - now I understand that it's just the normal behaviour of young women).
/r/TheRedPill19/07/13 03:11 AM
3

Does your state have an Executions Act or something? You might be able to seize her assets or garnish her wages.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:28 PM
6

So you're not in one of those states that imprisons "deadbeats"?
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:16 PM
5

Be more aggressive with your collections.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:11 PM
3

If she was being intellectually honest she'd simply make the conditions equivalent to those of a surrogate mother.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:10 PM
1

Link down.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 09:29 PM
1

Less /r/atheisn style pictures please, more reliable sources. At least show the source in the image.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 04:40 PM
9

He'd go by A.H. Campbell, or change his name.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 07:43 PM
-3

Yeah. They really they're losing and they change the game. They don't just choose to lose.
/r/TheRedPill10/07/13 01:31 AM
1

Label vs descriptor. This is one reason why the word feminism means almost nothing anymore. Millions of people are wearing thousands of different labels and all calling themselves feminists. That fragmentation makes it impossible to apply a proper descriptor to feminism. It's like a vegetarian who eats beef, chicken, and fish. As long as you haven't defined vegetarianism, she's free to call herself whatever she wants, although the word starts to lose its meaning.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:46 PM
1

As it ought to be.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:43 PM
2

Yeah, but organziations have been forced to lower their standards so that women can pass. It's now a constitutional requirement in Canada that the standards be low enough that women can pass. A similar issue has also arisen in LA
/r/MensRights03/07/13 09:37 PM
3

Your editorializing oversteps. More accurately, women have always been the most influential at shaping children's opinions and behaviour, for better and worse.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:03 PM
1

Update when the case is published
/r/MensRights02/07/13 07:26 PM
6

Calculus is hard but the results are easy to interpret.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 03:01 AM
5

The court didn't disallow him from testifying - the Crown failed to call him as a witness because they figured it was unnecessary.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:38 PM
2

A feminist is both a label and descriptor. She's saying that your views are feminist and so feminism accurately describes your view. Nevertheless, you are rejecting the label (probably because it has its own baggage and is inconsistently interpreted). All groups that have an urge to proselytize do this - atheists say "oh you're having doubts about the existence of God? You must not believe in God, therefore you're an atheist." They determine that you fit the descriptor and insist that your wear …
/r/MensRights21/06/13 07:03 PM
1

Because it wasn't murder - he punched in the windows and she tried to drive away, killing him. You'd have an argument if she ran him down.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 05:58 PM
1

That depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If the goal is to get free stuff with no regard to one's own reputation (maybe you're on vacation so it doesn't matter if you piss off a bunch of strangers you'll never see again), then you can accomplish a lot in this situation, even if you're arguing with somebody who's actually intelligent. Because many intelligent people will back down from that kind of behaviour because engaging with it can be high-risk: do you want to be the manager who pis…
/r/TheRedPill19/06/13 11:00 AM
10

If empirical evidence demonstrates that you can get what you want after you run your mouth like an idiot, then you keep running your mouth like an idiot. She's not stupid, she's just playing the player instead of the cards.
/r/TheRedPill18/06/13 05:30 PM
1

This is just an example of a morally bankrupt woman. It's more /r/redpill than /r/mensrights
/r/MensRights01/06/13 11:15 PM
0

Current situation -> unjust inequality (gender discrimination and misery) Ideal situation -> just equality (gender-neutral leniency) Middle ground -> unjust equality (gender-neutral misery) Unfortunately, this case cannot bring us towards an ideal situation, but it can create a middle ground which will unite men and women against this injustice. Usually, you need to create temporary misery to catalyze justice movements. See: every conflict ever. The fight is unpleasant and creates short-term mis…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 04:10 PM
12

Well this girl is posed in front of Douglas library at Queen's University. Here's more information about that program and here's its mission statement. I can't give you any examples of successful people who went through that program, but I can give you this guy. Dr Jason Laker was a former Vice-Dean of Student Affairs at Queen's whose doctoral dissertation was on male engagement in the classroom is a strong proponent of Men's issues. He's since left to join San Jose State University and he's sor…
/r/MensRights22/05/13 07:58 PM
2

The supreme court, to its credit, did undo the horror of the lower court judgments.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 04:11 PM
1

This type of rationalization is super common.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 09:25 PM
5

Name, shame?
/r/MensRights08/05/13 09:20 PM
2

You don't gain weight drinking gasoline.
/r/TheRedPill07/05/13 11:58 PM
-6

It's a strange property of this law that violently forcing sex without consent is the same crime as merely breaching a term of consent. Maybe they should take a look at contract law (at least in the commonwealth) and distinguish between breaches of a consent's condition (absolutely no sex ; breach means rape) and breaches of a consent's warranty (yes, but only if you do x; breach means lesser crime). Of course then you have to determine which terms are enforceable because some clearly aren't (se…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 05:47 PM
1

actual mensrights = actual equality = actual feminism Can we all go home now? I'm tired.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:50 PM
2

It's simply libel. You don't need a new fucking word.
/r/MensRights21/04/13 05:35 PM
1

If you can't see, then that's reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 06:16 PM
5

Is this really the best solution? I think the first step would be to suspend all support to custodial parent. The second step would be to give stronger weight to the "friendly parent" principle: the parent who is most likely to honor court orders is most likely to get custody. And parents who dishonor court orders risk losing custody and also risk being found in contempt of court. Criminalization seems like a very drastic and last resort step and should be covered by "kidnapping" law - it doesn'…
/r/MensRights16/04/13 08:40 PM
2

It's a totally legit strategy - Jerry Lee Lewis figured it out; marry 'em young and train 'em up like a bird dog. /s Some people are so oblivious as to how hypocritically offensive they are. I'm offensive but at least I keep it in a self-consistent schema.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:39 AM
1

They confirmed what we'd already known for 6000 years
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:35 AM
2

What if she isn't czech?
/r/seduction12/04/13 02:41 AM
1

I bet I can beat your ass in Mario Kart...
/r/seduction10/04/13 01:25 AM
7

Reddit: where even the seduction community loves video games Aside: Mario Kart is fucking catnip.
/r/seduction09/04/13 06:55 AM
1

/thread
/r/MensRights07/04/13 03:28 PM
3

You'd think banning people would be contrary to anarchist principles - I guess expediency is more highly valued than intellectual consistency.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:08 PM
2

Topenga from Boy Meets World advocated for this kind of dystopia. It's amazing that 1) that shit got a free pass, and 2) it still gets a free pass.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:22 AM
1

Sorry. Yeah I misread you. Morally you shouldn't pressure something you think they would regret
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:02 AM
4

It has inspired me to be a better person Stop trying to spread hate Wat?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 10:54 AM
1

Your reasoning leads straight to anarchy because our entire system of law is supported by state sanctioned violence. You cannot have law without the state threatening to do stuff at gunpoint. If taxation is theft, then enforcing property rights is extortion.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 10:46 AM
1

In a long term relationship there's going to be massive variation in enthusiasm between each instance of sex. I know I've reluctantly had sex many times (not commonly, maybe like 5-10% of the time) when I wasn't feeling it 100% because I'm generally considerate of my partner. Reluctance per se shouldn't vitiate consent nor make the parties scummy. To get there you need violence or threats IMO (intimidation is iffy because it's an interpretation of the complainant rather than an action of the acc…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 10:15 AM
1

Also when did black become a gender?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:58 AM
4

R v JA 2011 Supreme court of Canada Rape allegation (and subsequent conviction despite recanted testimony) only arose after man sought custody of their child.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:56 AM
1

Because it's a confusing message, particularly when other feminists are trying to advocate for explicit communication of consent (rather than an absence of communication of non consent). Those advocates say "yes means yes". So now we have contradictory feminist sound bites ("yes means yes" and "yes doesn't always mean yes" It's a terribly unfocused message.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 02:00 AM
0

Are you Louis CK?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:56 AM
5

It's straight out of Of Mice and Men - "with one word do you know what I could do to you nigger!"
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:55 AM
1

Really? Who wrote that?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 01:51 AM
3

Like everything it follows the two rules plus relationship context (the three rules?) If you've already successful ly used this kind of humour, this is an improvement over "hey what's up?".
/r/seduction25/03/13 10:50 AM
7

*blacks. Also this whole "the oppressed can't be a ____ against the oppressors" where oppressor is a straight cis white man is just the biggest clusterfuck of a concept. Any child can identify the flaws in it. 1) the "oppressed" are often in positions of great power (Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Xi Jinping, Shinzo Abe just to name the leaders of the world's four biggest economies). 2) the "oppressors" are often in poverty. So the argument is unsound because whites aren't always in power and non …
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:27 AM
3

It's to an large extent an educational movement. To the extent that education uptake is never 100%, the work will never end.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:53 AM
2

You're right. Teaching used to be a male dominated profession.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 02:45 AM
7

This. The story always runs farther than the retraction.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:13 PM
1

Most definitely. If they wanted to solve the problem they wouldn't be so broad in their interpretation of victim blaming. As it is it's considered victim blaming to offer any comment that suggests the victim could have lowered their risk. Feminists abhor these comments because apparently they'd rather be in danger than take responsibility for it. They would rather see women raped and men punished than see no rape at all.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 01:27 PM
9

Interestingly a white lesbian can rape a straight white woman, but not a lesbian woman. Lesbians have a white lady rape shield.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 03:31 PM
3

They've been walking on eggshells since Larry Summers got booted.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:51 AM
2

When I was in high school a teacher belaboured the point that nice and kind are different and the the kids just didn't get it (my 15 year old self included). It takes a higher order thinking to understand these subtle differences. What we learn to be synonyms aren't quite. There's also a difference between pick and choose.
/r/seduction17/03/13 02:45 AM
43

No. He's saying look for girls who like you, rather than changing yourself for girls you like.
/r/seduction14/03/13 11:02 PM
2

Like a shark?
/r/seduction14/03/13 11:00 PM
2

That would still support higher rates for men. Insurers don't insure per mile.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:38 AM
1

The Ontario insurance systen is also irrationally priced. I remember comparing rates at rbc for different vehicles and the difference between legal minimum rates and plans with comprehensive or collision and then comparing that to the published payouts by benefit type and makes and models. Rationally you'd expect comprehensive and collision premiums would scale with comprehensive and collision risk, respectively but they just scale arbitrarily.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:32 AM
2

Ughh... as an ontarian I need to point out that insurance is privatized almost everywhere. What you mean to say is that ontario insurance is super expensive because the legal minimum insurance is too high, no fault insurance means that good drivers are punished because at fault drivers' insurance only bears half the cost, and because insurance fraud is rampant - overbilling by auto shops, overbilling by medical professionals, and straightup staged accidents. Most states have private insurance bu…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:15 AM
8

Was worried I was going to see a brand new form of hate. Was pleasantly surprised.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 07:53 PM
2

Rights are protected with force (law). Else they don't exist - they just become guidelines. Human rights only exist insofar as they're protected by force. Else they're just judgments about what ought to be .
/r/MensRights03/03/13 06:36 AM
4

Pardon me. Fixed.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:57 PM
9

She was only convicted on one count, not 11.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:40 PM
10

She was only convicted of one count [edit: she was previously convicted for a second count]. The other 10 9 allegations weren't prosecuted. The other 10 9 weren't necessarily even false - simply unsubstantiated (although her credibility is terrible).
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:39 PM
6

Except that it's actually true - higher expectations can be damaging to mental health.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:24 PM
3

The "white" part was pretty unnecessary - natives and asians also have extremely high suicide rates. White men are more or less average in terms of male suicide rates.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:22 PM
2

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime? /s
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:32 AM
1

Fair enough. I should have said instead that I assumed it was an online radio button survey where they wouldn't let you proceed without checking a binary option. I don't know what kind of methodology they were using, though, so that assumption could very well be bunk.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:41 PM
2

Read the assumption I stated in my first comment. That covers it. Yes I know margins of error are meant to frame confidence intervals but they can also be used to express imprecision. They're particularly useful in cases like this where 1 significant digit is too vague and 2 significant digits are too precise.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 03:53 AM
2

Yes but with this thing called math we can find out how many were women based on the magnitudinal differences between male responses, female responses, and all responses. For example given that 41% of the women supported the motion, and 72% of the men supported the motion and that 62% of all people supported the motion, we know that most of the respondents were men because (72-62)<(62-41) - ie the "all" category is closer to the male response because that category is weighted more heavily becaus…
/r/MensRights19/02/13 11:35 PM
3

Nope. Assuming no transgender or no gender option then we know: X+Y =1895 x.41+y.72 = (x+y)*.62 Or that there were about 600 women.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 12:06 PM
3

I don't know if any of you has any experience or familiarity with Indian law, government, regulations, politics, or bureaucracy, but this inanity is about par for the course. India's an equal-opportunity ignorant.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:51 AM
7

The fact that you got a single downvote is pretty alarming: who's advocating for torture or castration as a legal sentence?
/r/MensRights19/02/13 10:45 AM
2

Wow- that conflation of MRA and PUA nearly made me sick
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:55 AM
2

Agreed until this part No, it does not negate consent. If a college-age student sleeps with his or her professor, the professor does not get charged with rape (non-consensual intercourse). The teacher gets fired for violating the terms of their employment. Authority-imbalance does not necessarily negate consent. Professors are different from teachers because professors' students are mostly adults and often treated as peers. Second, many rape statutes have clauses that say something like "no cons…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 03:11 AM
1

That's an excellent argument for lowering the age of consent, however it is no defense for this teacher. Furthermore, teachers are usually considered in a "position of trust or authority" which negates consent even when the students are of age.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:46 AM
2

Not really Complainant in a criminal context is a person who alleges that a crime has been committed against them.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:43 AM
1

Not sure if "alleged victims" is best - a better word is "complainants".
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:09 PM
4

It's interesting how subdued the language is in describing the alleged rapist: "I will be recommending termination," he said. "We're just shocked and disappointed. And it's just hard to believe. Just disappointed and disheartened that people we put our trust in would violate that trust." Imagine an alleged male teacher rapist having termination "recommended" and that his employer is "disappointed and disheartened" about the crime. You'd be more likely to hear words like "monster" or "appalled". …
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:35 PM
7

They mixed up "compliment" and "complement". Their mistaken use of the word is actually good advice though - a woman should look for a man who complements her, and vice versa (pardon for the heteronormativity- there's only so much PC you can fit in a wisblurb.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:10 PM
2

Well there's no arguing with that...
/r/MensRights06/02/13 10:50 PM
2

I think you are confusing specific intent with subjective mens rea. Specific intent is what's needed for crimes like murder, theft, fraud, etc. That doesn't mean that the test for the mens rea of those crimes is a subjective one. No I'm not. When it is said that the accused requires intent or knowledge it means a subjective intent- the test is "did the accused actually believe" (subjective) rather than "would a reasonable person have believed" (objective) or "would a reasonable person with the k…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 03:50 AM
2

But there are no purely subjective mens rea for criminal law. Sure there are. Murder, even theft requires it. Constructive murder was ruled unconstitutional in Canada in R v Vaillancourt precisely because it lacked subjective mens rea. Right now in Canada the test is that the person took reasonable steps in order to ascertain consent. That seems like a pretty good balance to me. Fair enough. But it also has restrictions, for example, if the accused is intoxicated they can't argue that that they …
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:13 AM
2

consent is is a subjective matter, but whether the other person thought there was consent is a modified objective test. And that's not okay. Every legal development of the last 100 years has focused on the moral culpability of the accused and for that reason subjective mens rea has become a necessary element in establishing a conviction. In the last 30 years or so though, we've seen that standard be pared back (compare R v Pappajohn's insistence of subjective standards to the current law). Furth…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:07 AM
3

To suggest that "consent" is determined by a woman's secret, subjective "feelings" instead of her outward manifestations of assent is blatant misinformation Unfortunately, in many places it's actually the law. The subjective feeling of no consent is sufficient to establish the actus reus. That's not dispositive of the issue of guilt however. See R v JA 2011 SCC 28 citing R v Ewanchuk. I'd very much like to see some Alabama jurisprudence.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 06:55 PM
1

Drivel
/r/MensRights02/02/13 06:30 AM
0

A ladies' stall with a poster of the big bad wolf saying "Oh what a large pussy you have!" is outrageous and would receive media attention and boycotts. The fact that this isn't yet happening here is indicative of a double-standard. These double-standards are definitely within the purview of Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 10:06 PM
2

Downvoted for overzealous title. We're in the right here, no need to overreach our claims.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 09:34 PM
6

"Likely"? Or has already?
/r/MensRights30/01/13 01:08 AM
6

Love =/= stockholm syndrome.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 01:06 AM
3

What's your jurisdiction? Do you remember the officers' names/ or the date of the previous call? You could still press charges for that previous incident depending on the date and the statute of limitations for that previous period. Have you or her ever sought any medical attention? If so there will be records. Do you know any people who could corroborate any parts of your tale? The officers who responded to the first call come to mind. If you can get those officers to testify/ provide notes you…
/r/MensRights30/01/13 01:05 AM
1

now as in this situation in the future as in future situations.
/r/MensRights30/01/13 12:55 AM
35

But that's how the common law works: an extremely sympathetic case results in a landmark decision which is then followed and expanded in the opposite direction.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:17 AM
2

That McCain case was obscene
/r/MensRights28/01/13 08:15 AM
6

I'm appalled that she ever had custody. I mean better late than never but still...
/r/MensRights18/01/13 07:27 AM
2

People: please look at the footnotes
/r/MensRights18/01/13 07:18 AM
2

It was pushed aside when feminism waded into interest-advocacy rather than sticking to intellectually honest principles
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:21 AM
3

C'est possible.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:19 AM
1

Ok. Apparently there are no academic feminists.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 02:18 AM
2

It said his new wife is too old to have kids
/r/MensRights14/01/13 01:18 AM
-3

If you don't teach or produce academic scholarship, then you're not working in academia... Academics is moreso a procedure than a job
/r/MensRights14/01/13 12:57 AM
-7

No. Those people aren't academics. They're shills posing as academics. Academics apply the scientific method or at least create intellectually-honest hypotheses.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:24 PM
-14

Against adultery? What is this /r/sharia ?
/r/MensRights13/01/13 10:58 PM
5

You're right- feminism has a definition and branding problem. The way I was brought up, feminism simply meant respect for women (particularly opinions and skills). That definition is uncontroversially acceptable although it could use some elaboration and expansion. Unfortunately, what we often see is the Youtube comments section of feminism which is far removed from its academic roots.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 07:54 PM
1

The major issue is the trade-off between childrens' and mothers' well-being. Women are uncontroversially more selective and less likely to be happy with their partners and apply for 75% of divorces. This is a problem and the line of thinking for the last 30 years has been that unhappy women shouldn't have to live with men that contribute to their unhappiness. However, that reasoning fails to consider the fact that children are made to be better-off by living with both parents, irrespective of th…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 04:40 AM
-4

it's an anti-feminist attitude
/r/MensRights20/12/12 03:54 AM
0

She sentenced Chen to a maximum of six years and nine months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. Can you not read? Please resubmit with a proper title.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 11:11 PM
1

Except you need to prove all the elements of either abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. The fact that you suffered damages is not sufficient.
/r/MensRights29/08/12 10:40 PM
1

Eggs are not embryos. You're right. Edited for clarity. This is inconsistent. Infanticide is killing a conscious/sentient being, even if that sentience is only in its developmental stage. You've presupposed that infants are conscious and sentient, and the evidence suggests that infants are less conscious or sentient than crows, dolphins, and chimpanzees. Infants fail the spot test, they can't use tools, and they cannot produce episodic memory. Rational ethics can only deal with things as they ex…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 10:31 PM
1

I personally consider the moment Yeah that's opinion and it's arbitrary. There's no reason to suggest that it's not alive before. the biological definition of life ... is a very controversial definition. For many it's as simple as "self-replicating carbon-based molecules"
/r/MensRights29/08/12 10:08 PM
3

Oh wow... you didn't understand that at all. Let me try again for your comprehension. And to prevent confusion, I am pro-choice. I did not say killing babies is like killing cows. I said intentionally killing things is murder, and implied that the morality of that murder is contingent on what you kill. Killing someone good is worse than killing someone bad, is worse than killing a cow, is worse than killing an ant. Or whatever. The order doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion. The poi…
/r/MensRights29/08/12 12:08 AM
3

Title misleading: it should be "Why MRA's should opposed a rape exemption to an abortion prohibition."
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:03 PM
14

Probably in the same way that I think killing cows for slaughter is murder, but I still eat beef. I see murder as "intentional killing of something", but in some contexts (like food) that is acceptable. We're not talking about legal definitions (obviously) because the whole abortion=murder argument is not a legal one.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 11:01 PM
3

Pretty much same as perjury.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:58 PM
3

No it wouldn't. 99% of these cases would fall in the between the extremes of "beyond a reasonable doubt it was rape" and "beyond a reasonable doubt it was a false accusation". In the middle women would make the claim, get the abortion, the man would suffer the investigation, and neither party would get convicted.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:53 PM
4

So she wouldn't be convicted of false accusation, and you wouldn't be convicted of rape, but you'd still suffer from the accusation.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:50 PM
2

What do you mean by "criminal damage"? If you want the state to punish her, then you only have criminal remedies. If you just want to get your buddy's stuff back (or money in lieu), then you need to pursue civil remedies.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 03:55 PM
2

This is more a civil issue than a criminal issue. People rarely get convicted for crimes related to destroying or damaging chattels (what'd you even charge? vandalism?). You get justice by suing (much lower standard of proof). Cops don't care about this shit for either gender.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 04:41 AM
2

This sounds like the kind of thing that would be prevented under the doctrine of factual estoppel. You cannot assert on a fact that you've already admitted to not being true. That said, family law is weird shit. Get lawyer. If nothing else, she won't get the money.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:31 AM
2

Women of a century ago didn't divorce because they couldn't- divorce meant poverty. While that didn't do too much for women's rights, it did a lot for keeping marriages together. They're right in that offering financial support for single women will increase divorce rates; they're not necessarily right that that's a bad thing though. As a society we prefer non-poor divorcées to oppressed wives.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 12:07 AM
1

Having poor presentation might confuse the discussion, but calling out the presentation instead of the argument just completely derails it.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:56 PM
2

Not if Louis CK says it
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:53 PM
6

from abstract First, after controlling for extensive criminological, demographic, and socioeconomic variables, I found that blacks, males, and offenders with low levels of education and income receive substantially longer sentences. Second, disparities are primarily generated by departures from the guidelines, rather than differential sentencing within the guidelines. Departures produce about 55 percent of the black-white difference and 70 percent of the male-female difference. Third, although b…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:52 PM
3

should the same standard not be applied to women for contraception fraud? Probably, but instead the men get sued for child support
/r/MensRights21/08/12 12:56 AM
2

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!
/r/MensRights16/08/12 03:39 AM
1

The Canadian legal system does not. Yes it does: from Halbury's: Alan D. Gold (Contributor) Halsbury's Laws of Canada - Criminal Offences and Defences VI. SEXUAL AND PUBLIC MORALITY CRIMES Sexual assault is an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such as to violate the sexual integrity of the complainant. It is a crime of general intent. The test of sexual nature is objective, the issue being whether, viewed in the light of all the circumstances, the sexual or carnal context of …
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:35 PM
2

source on the "only known case of in-flight child..." claim? It appears to be bullshit
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:12 PM
1

I still like the rape distinction: sexual assault is so vague that the charge equates a grope (or a kick in the nards) with a non-aggravated rape. Sexual assault is literally assault with a sexual component which is different from non-consensual sex.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:04 PM
1

Teeth is a poor example. Teeth could probably be considered a negatively distributed population variable. Most people have ok teeth and a small minority have terrible teeth. It's like feet- most people have a functional quantity of feet (2) and a small minority are disadvantaged. A better example would be something that is normally distributed, like grades. "She has abnormal grades." Without more you don't know if she's a terrible, or a brilliant student. You only know that she's not average. I …
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:05 PM
-5

Actually "abnormally" is the qualifier. It is only negative when deviation from the norm is undesirable. "He's abnormally brazen." That is a positive statement when you're talking about a business leader. It's a negative statement when you're talking about a primary school teacher. Abnormal is only negative when conformity is desired or deviation is discouraged.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 10:02 PM
14

"She is abnormally intelligent" Yep that's super negative... Abnormal just means different (not like the majority). The only time that has negative connotations is when there's xenophobia or strong pressure to conform (i.e. when being different is considered bad per se). When there's none ("she's abnormally skilled at her job") then that bad connotation disappears. Making euphemisms in this case is doubly stupid because 1) abnormality isn't the problem, attitudes about non-conformity are the pro…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 05:34 AM
1

Leviticus 20:10-12 shows that the man's marital status doesn't matter. It's only adultery when the woman is married. 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 12 And if a man lie with his dau…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 12:05 AM
1

A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is not adultery in Leviticus. It's only adultery if she's married.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 09:35 PM
1

No, what I meant was- the marital status of the man doesn't matter. A married man has sex and it's not adultery. If a married woman has sex it is adultery.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 09:29 PM
0

and adultery was only when the woman had sex- it didn't count when a man did it. This is because women were property and having sex with a married or betrothed woman was like destroying someone else's property. You're seriously sticking to this argument? That the bible does not describe and attempt to enable a patriarchal culture?
/r/MensRights11/08/12 07:11 PM
8

You ignored the "if she's not a virgin she gets stoned to death" part.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 04:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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