TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

logrusmage Archive

View 0 posts and 788 comments by logrusmage 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)
3

Like if someone asked you how to play craps, you wouldn't begin by explaining what dice are and how they work. Says the guy who doesn't talk to many neuro atypical peeps.
/r/MensRights06/11/17 07:40 PM
1

Roles: Stupid, but arose do to physical differences and played a role once upon a time. Were not created to oppress women but to keep society functioning. Can and should be ignored now in a modern world where most work is intellectual and there is no need to innately value women and diseminate labor roles based on physical ability like there was 10K+ years ago. Differences: Many are innate, many are not. Obviously, we are a dimorphic species, and some level of innate differences exist. Not a par…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:18 AM
–

They use the word specifically so they DON'T have to deal with arguing moral philosophy.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 01:23 AM
1

So I get to slap them for free!? Freakin' sweet!
/r/MensRights03/09/16 01:22 AM
1

Something something patriarchy
/r/MensRights03/09/16 01:17 AM
1

My god... so many social science masters programs just sound like crocks of shit. I have SUCH a hard time believing a masters program in "Peace, Conflict and Development studies" had even a sliver of rigor. Hope I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights24/08/16 12:12 AM
1

Don't argue with Marxists. It's not worth banging your head against a violent wall.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 09:31 PM
2

Like 99% sure this is just porn for psychological masochists.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 10:28 PM
-1

Feminism is a collectivist ideology. Socialism and communism are the collectivist ideologies. 1 + 1 = 2.
/r/MensRights22/11/15 07:38 PM
1

Damn. She needs some love L O V E is a funny way to spell therapy.
/r/MensRights09/10/15 10:28 PM
7

the time it takes to do research ...Lol. Just no. The vast majority of cracked articles aren't exactly well sourced. They're like 90% misconceptions and historical memes that are easily disproved by spending a few minutes on LexisNexis (I'd be willing to bet that most of their authors use Google as their only source of information).
/r/MensRights08/10/15 09:57 PM
1

I certainly can't disagree with lowering the priority of victimless crimes like drug charges.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 06:19 PM
3

I don't think most social scientists consciously do that (make theories fit conclusions). The problem is they almost all have the exact same internal bias towards collectivism and against individualism, because individualism inherently devalues their field of study.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:52 AM
-2

Are you implying this is because they aren't taken seriously? Because I think a lack of funding and time and the fact that most of those kits will ultimately go no where is far more likely a reason than a specific targeted distrust of those who come forward as rape victims. Rape is a he said she said crime. It's notoriously difficult to prove and prosecute without witnesses, particularly when one party claims the sex was consensual. I can easily see law enforcement wanting to send resources towa…
/r/MensRights15/09/15 09:56 PM
-5

...Which is pretty much exactly what happens at the moment.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:38 PM
7

Social "sciences" are 90% bunk at the moment. They're all babies in the academic world. Currently, their primary use is to excuse expansions of government power. So yeah, they're going to be attractive to leftists.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:35 PM
2

Trump and Sanders have the same chance of winning a primary. 0+e.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 07:46 AM
5

I am not a "Randroid", but this quote from Ayn Rand's work still rings true: This isn't really a necessary disclaimer. You don't need to note that you don't blindly follow a philosopher whenever you quote him or her.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:11 PM
1

socialism for the rich, the free market for everyone else My god, if only this were actually true... the free market for everyone else part might actually make the socialism for the wealthy part worth it. Its more like rent-seeking for the ill-meaning well connected wealthy, burdensome nonsense regulation for the well-meaning ill-connected wealthy, and a shit sandwich of economic interference and social engineering for everyone else.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:10 PM
21

Mr. Olympia physique is a symbol of dedication, pride and strength You're aware that that level of body building is almost exclusively funded by rich old gay male fetishists right?
/r/MensRights01/09/15 06:09 PM
1

Why would you care about fashion at all when you're wearing cargo pants? Because people generally like to appear appealing to others. I've cut down the number of cargo shorts I own since being told how terrible they look. I get way more compliments (that is to say I now actually get a few compliments) on my dress when I'm not wearing cargo shorts. That makes me happy and generally improves my quality of life more than the utility of the cargo pockets did. I need to carry a bunch of shit all day …
/r/MensRights19/08/15 02:00 AM
12

This isn't any different from the myriad of articles about fashion faux pas, most of which are committed by/about women. This is not an issue. Cargo shorts are indeed ugly. They disrupt the silhouette, which is basically the most important aspect of dress for men. I say this as a guy who routinely wears cargo shorts for convenience sake. Don't complain about non-issues/ This kind of crap makes us look just as bad (ok... more like almost as bad) as tumblrinas. Posting this here has two ultimate e…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 03:21 PM
1

LMFAO I'm on this list for correcting someone's usage of a word's definition. http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/3dnr0h/woman_bartender_refuses_to_serve_male_patron/ct7ngdt
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:45 PM
5

This isn't so much discrimination as it is ostracism In this context, those two things are synonyms. You cannot ostracize without discriminating in some way, even if you're discriminating against an individual.
/r/MensRights18/07/15 01:29 PM
2

This looks like a young adult responding to a teenager.
/r/MensRights12/07/15 05:59 PM
2

Look at his name. Pretty sure he's a joke-bot who responds to "what the fuck is this?"
/r/MensRights02/07/15 06:15 PM
3

So can't I just go in and claim I'm non-binary when someone asks me to leave?
/r/MensRights20/05/15 06:24 PM
2

You could also mention that the site calling for said boycott is explicitly anti-MRA...
/r/MensRights15/05/15 08:32 PM
-1

You think society means being forced to pay for other people's things? That's a pretty poor definition. The vast majority of human interaction is voluntary, and thus excluded from what you call society. That's kind of sad. When I go to the store and buy something, am I not participating in society? When I help my neighbour put up a basketball hoop, am I not participating in society? What about when I buy the homeless guy outside of 7-eleven a bagel and an iced tea? Or when I go to work and my cl…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 06:33 PM
2

It is clearly labelled as comedy. I will not sign a petition telling anyone what they can't joke about.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:55 PM
-4

Why should anyone be forced to pay for her fake tits? Why should anyone be forced to pay for anyone else's anything?
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:51 PM
16

Isn;'t he basically the text book example of a terrible scientist? No controls, no blindness, being directly involved in his study, using students as subjects and letting them know the purpose of the experiment, going in with preconceived notions... The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the worst of all time.
/r/MensRights09/05/15 10:48 PM
–

"nobody in sociology knows what 'controlling for variables' means because most of the field isn't fucking scientifically minded worth a fucking damn or they'd be in another field" ::Slow Clap::
/r/MensRights05/05/15 06:33 PM
3

Yeah science is unreliable because hey there's no guarantee the sun will come up the next day even though it has every time in the past... http://xkcd.com/1132/ Reminded me of my favourite XKCD.
/r/MensRights28/04/15 05:23 PM
3

That's my thought but i'm hesitant to even interact with her Those are good instincts. Trust them. I only meant when she comes a knockin'. Talk to a lawyer.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:32 PM
3

Even IF it contained some sperm, I peed right before we had sex, and had sex for a minute. Your odds ofd getting her pregnant that way are freakishly miniscule. Deny that it could even possibly be you.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:30 PM
3

The odds you got a woman pregnant without ejaculating inside of her are incredibly low. If you urinated in between your last masturbation session and said sex, the probability drops even further. Deny that it could possibly be yours and demand a paternity test.
/r/MensRights09/04/15 04:28 PM
–

I took a race relations class earlier in college and we were told of a study where hiring managers were given identical resumes with the only difference being the names either being white-sounding (John Smith) or ethnic-sounding (Jawan Smith or Juan Smith). Did they include red neck names as well? Because I'd be willing to bet Jimmy-Bob, Jud and Cleetus would all be less likely to be hired than John or George...
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:37 AM
7

Eh, just a crappy writer writing an out of continuity Wonder Woman story. Sensation Comics gives the writers a LOT of editorial leeway. Not a big deal. Just another shitty story.
/r/MensRights29/03/15 02:18 PM
1

Ask them to cite a source, trace that source back to a bad study, ask for a new source. Rinse and repeat.
/r/MensRights21/03/15 05:14 PM
2

Majora's Mask.
/r/MensRights20/03/15 02:27 PM
4

What am I missing? Everything the NOW does to hinder male progress? The dear colleagues letter? Pretty much everything involving sexual assault and Title IX? The Duluth Model?
/r/MensRights18/03/15 02:46 PM
1

That seems reasonable enough to be true. Not sure why DNA would cause the creation of antibodies though... and it is still entirely meaningless to a relasionship.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 10:09 PM
9

Also, she retains DNA from semen from past lovers (especially if she had an abortion, no joke, look it up, this is all new research). I can't possibly fathom why you think this, or why it could possibly matter. Jesus, this is some baaaaad science.
/r/MensRights06/03/15 03:44 PM
1

Economic Left/Right: 6.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69 That being said the amount of hard leftists here is hilariously ironic.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 06:33 PM
3

Does anybody ever get banned from here? I think the Manhood academy bots get banned on occasion.
/r/MensRights28/02/15 08:50 PM
2

They are and always have been "progressive" crap rags.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 05:09 PM
2

Oh god lol. Yeah I'm out.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 03:18 AM
1

...What?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 03:18 AM
3

Right= status quo Left = change This is the ancient, totally useless version of the scale I was talking about, only second in uselessness to the actual original meaning (Nobility to the right of the king, citzens reps to the left). What is hard about this? Apaprently its hard to realize that feminists want plenty of changes. As do the vast majority of people on "the right." And plenty of people on "the left" want to preserve the status quo in some ways. That scale simply isn't useful for describ…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 02:16 AM
2

Democrats and Republicans are both right wing parties. Lmfao Only if you use an ancient scale. On any reasonable scale, they're both right around the center. Far right is anarchy, far left is absolute authoritarism. That's pretty much the only way to set the scale up so it makes any sense. The fact that Hitler can be "far right" while Stalin was "far left" makes absolutely no sense at all, as they were fdunctionally identical.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 01:52 AM
5

"My opinion is not backed up by data, and is in fact contradicted by data, but that's ok because a lot of other people also have this opinion." ...lolwat. Very disappointing for a Montessori director. Maria Montessori would be appalled.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 06:06 PM
2

I didn't see very much commentary on the game play. I thought it was fun, but I haven't played much of the older Metroid games. I just thought it was way better than the first one for the Wii (because that was a bit of a clusterfuck). I know some people had problems with the game play, but by and large the complaints were about the story and basically the humanization of Samus from an essentially silent bad ass protagonist to a real person who was once not as confident as she is now, and who can…
/r/MensRights06/12/14 01:22 AM
20

Or how about when everyone flipped their shit when they tried to give Samus Aran some pathos and ethos in Other M? It was like no one could believe they dared to give Samus ethos via a male former CO.
/r/MensRights05/12/14 10:41 PM
2

"It's not your job preventing you from seeing your kids. It's your wife."
/r/MensRights19/11/14 08:02 AM
2

"My name is mister Pot. Hey Kettle, you're waaaaaay too black these days!"
/r/MensRights06/11/14 12:29 AM
1

It creates the illusion of a separate person, like a ripple in the sea thinking its an individual. No, it is a separate person. That's why we have a name for it (the mind, or the ego). In reality you are that, which is that. lol. Ok, we're done here. Feel free to continue to believe that this kind of nonsense actually means something.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 10:05 PM
1

A person is the ego and mind defining itself as being separate from everything else. Which it is, by definition. If it isn't, how could it define anything at all? Because there is an ego/mind (the mind encompasses the ego obviously), that ego/mind is a person. In reality, we are in a sea of quarks, and we are all connected. This does not contradict that fact that I am a person separate from you on my map. The fact that the territory is one level does not preclude me from the creation of concepts…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 09:56 PM
1

I can't because there isn't really such a thing as a person. ...Er... what? Unicorns don't exist, but I can certainly define "unicorn". How can you say it doesn't exist if you can't tell me what it is? Are you trying to imply that nothing exists? (Which would be very silly considering you must exist and I must exist or we can't be having this conversation, not to mention a whole other slew of things that have to exist for any of this to be happening). So is any creature with this hardwear a pers…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 08:21 AM
1

A person is this idea there is a distinct person inside the body. Can you define "person" without using the word person please? It might make things more clear. Are you referring to the existence of what most people would call a separate "soul"? A person becomes a person by defining itself as separate from other things. So I am a person because I defined myself as not the same thing as a potato? There are also lots of other illusions, such as I am what I wear, buy, do etc. No one actually believ…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 12:31 AM
1

The thoughts and hardware that is misconceiving itself as something other that what it is perceiving and experiencing. Oh good god that mess that is your argument... OK let's try to untangle it. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible in line with your beliefs, I ask these questions in good faith and ask you to answer in kind (as you have thus far, to your credit): 1) Do I exist? As in, am I an existent? 2) If I exist, can I perceive the universe? 3) If I can perceive the universe,…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 08:22 PM
1

Your mind will conceive, your consciousness will be aware of your mind conceiving, but neither of these is this person you speak of. Oh? Than who exactly does the pronoun "your" refer to? I think my consciousness and my mind are exactly the person I'm speaking of. You've now changed the argument from whether or not I exist to whether or not I am the person I am referring to when I call myself a person. Which is odd, because it seems pretty clear that I am indeed referring to myself when I say I …
/r/MensRights02/11/14 08:09 PM
1

Yeah, so you perceive yourself as an individual person due to this misconception that you are something other than and separate from other quarks. You can't use the word "misconception" to prove that concepts are misconceptions. Misconception means to create an invalid concept on your map. Your use of the term basically necessitates that your argument is wrong. If I didn't exist to conceive, how could I possibly misconceive anything? I am not separate or other than my quarks. I am my quarks in t…
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:51 PM
1

You are aware of yourself looking at yourself, swimming in yourself. That's clearly not true. I am a group of quarks sensing other quarks which I then classify into percepts (individual objects/sensations) which I then classify into concepts (general classifications nested in one another an a fully integrated fashion, consists mostly of definitions). I am not the air around me. I have a map (percepts/concepts) of the territory (quarks, or whatever the last turtle on the way down is). While I am …
/r/MensRights02/11/14 07:27 PM
1

RAINN is a wonderful, reasonable, relatively scientifically minded organization.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:48 PM
1

Where is the point in which the person you think you are is contained? There is no point. I'm a self-aware mass of quarks swimming in a sea of quarks. I am also you, and you are me. Literally anyone who thinks for a few seconds can know this is bullshit.
/r/MensRights02/11/14 06:46 PM
3

Hence "at best."
/r/MensRights26/10/14 04:15 PM
7

At best, they're pencil pushers who come and do paperwork after something bad happens. They are required to neither protect nor serve.
/r/MensRights26/10/14 04:02 PM
1

Family Guy joke about nose sex Ear sex. It was ear sex.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 11:32 PM
2

Daily Life is a proudly female biased website with content tailored to women Yeah I don't think you're going to find much good content here.
/r/MensRights14/10/14 04:36 PM
2

Insisting on driving? Preferring the arguments of men over women regardless of quality?
/r/MensRights28/09/14 11:04 PM
3

It is not socially acceptable for men to be traditionally sexist in a way that benefits them Among college educated professionals? I agree. Among more blue collar folk? Not at all. I know guys who refuse to let women drive them anywhere. Guys will casually discuss how women are simply less rational or capable or competent in general. There is tons of misandry in the world, but there is also still a lot of total garbage misogyny that is mostly acceptable among a lot of people in modern nations.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 07:39 PM
2

I think it's socially acceptable in general for both to be sexist. General traditional sexism is socially acceptable in most circles. But I would agree that it is marginally more acceptable for women to be sexist than for men. Most people are irrational in the traditional way, not irrational in the tumblrina way.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 07:19 PM
2

Eh. I dint really agree. Men have plenty of opportunity to be sexist irrational twits, just as much as women in general. I challenge my guy friends on sexist crap all the time, at least as often as I call out my girl friends, girlfriend, and mother.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 06:56 PM
3

Some women. Just like some men think it's the way of the world when they want it, but bullshit responsibility when they don't. Irrational, hypocritical people exist basically in equal numbers among both sexes.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 05:53 PM
5

Assholes and irrational twits, not women. There are plenty of men who do the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 05:25 PM
13

Why? Women aren't the problem any more so than men are.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:53 PM
1

::whoosh::
/r/MensRights20/09/14 11:09 PM
1

No, I'm just reflecting the idiotic sentiment that a lot of the left-leaning peeps on Reddit seem to hold. To be fair, you did just say there's a lot of Jew-hating on reddit... as I Jew I've basically seen none from users who aren't obviously trolls.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 10:55 PM
0

Ayn Rand's zombie hand is placed firmly on her forehead for this one, Christ.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:20 PM
11

Hate a stupid Christian law? You're a good person! Hate a stupid Jewish law? You just hate Jews!
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:19 PM
–

...you need a lisence to cut hair in my state. HAIR.
/r/MensRights18/09/14 06:16 PM
21

the school asks that I do not bring a lawyer ...Bring a lawyer.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 06:33 PM
1

TL;DR: look at it in the context of the entire Reddit website. Rules against brigading are completely rational, and are above any philosophy or party line. If this were true, every single SRS user would've been shadowbanned years ago.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 06:57 PM
1

So more deflection. Lovely. Fucking off now.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:24 AM
1

Lovely way to respond to my criticism. Let me rephrase then: Were you aware she is using the definition of altruism created by the coiner of the term? If so, how could you possibly confuse that with what is clearly benevolence?
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:15 AM
1

There is absolutely no way you read Shrugged without picking up what Rand means when she uses the term altruism. So either you're a liar or you have sorry reading comprehension. I think you'll find few people who truly believe that the moral good is sacrifice your own life and happiness for others that you value less. Again, there's really nothing I can do here. That you would think any of her protagonists are sociopaths is beyond ridiculous. The fact that you think she advocates the elite stomp…
/r/MensRights20/08/14 04:06 AM
2

You literally ignored each f my questions in favour of a swath of baseless assertions that reveal you've read literally none of her work. Why would I continue the conversation? Someone already made up your mind for you.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 02:14 AM
0

It's like I'm reading another shitty Salon article. Lol.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 01:51 AM
-1

Ayn Rand was a fucking lunatic. Why do you think she was a lunatic? Which of her ideas do you think is lunacy? That the Universe exists? That using reason with sensory data is the only way to understand the world? That the proper standard of value is one's own life and happiness? That the proper role of government is to hold a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force in order to regulate the use of violence? That art is fundamentally a recreation of reality based on the artists metaphysical prem…
/r/MensRights19/08/14 09:47 PM
3

When people are talking about geek culture and comics, they don't mean Archie or The Peanuts.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 09:08 PM
2

Context dropping... context dropping everywhere...
/r/MensRights19/08/14 06:25 PM
-1

Incorrect. Worker's co-ops (and non-exploitative businesses) have factories and machines. That they bought from capitalists. Which were created by other capitalist created factories. No capitalism = no large scale machines. There is no reason for people to risk their lives opening a factory (which is what a non capitalist factory would require). When a capitalist fails, he's out his money. When a co-op fails in a non-capitalist environment, the members starve to death within months. Such a worke…
/r/MensRights19/08/14 06:06 PM
-1

There is nothing "medieval" about workers not being violently exploited. Getting rid of the ability to own capital would plunge us back into the dark ages. That was my point. 100% of the value capitalists violently steal from workers, without exploitation, would belong to the workers who created it. Except they didn't create shit. They put the physical motions, which is MAYBE .001% of what creates the value. Thus, such workers could fund their own construction/etc. Where does the starting money …
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:23 PM
-1

Though between her and Andrew Ryan, I'd go with Andrew. Are you insane? You're picking a psychotic video game character over arguably the greatest American Philosopher and one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century <_<
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:11 PM
-2

Again, Marx endorsed the individual worker owning the product of their work, not the persons violently exploiting them. So he advocated a return to pre-medieval society? With land (and liberty) they could: build businesses, homes, etc. Not without capitalists they can't.
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:09 PM
-1

Don't bother. The dude is deluded. His name is "anticapitalist".
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:09 PM
1

"nearly 90%" of girls read comics in the 1940s Yes, Archie existed. Totally the same thing as Superman right guys?
/r/MensRights19/08/14 05:06 PM
4

Pretty sure Hilary wasn't talking about a modern, all volunteer military that somehow only ever fights and only ever kills other military members.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 06:46 PM
2

Well, at least you were able to admit that a lot of it was utter bunk. How is that surprising? The vast majority of "scientific" knowledge humans have had throughout history is complete bunk. Phlogiston, bile, phrenology, astrology, alchemy, the four elements, the numerous myths explaining natural phenomena... I did say it was worth studying for it's historical context. It's worth studying in the present context too. Philosophy is ultimately the path to any goal. I never said ethics is worthless…
/r/MensRights13/08/14 12:18 AM
2

Well, when I read about it, it was under metaphysics, as is epistemology and philosophy in general. That just indicates you didn't read very much at all. Although philosophy is a hierarchical subject, that doesn't mean that problems that are fundamentally epistemological in nature are problems of metaphysics. Metaphysics is what the universe is, epistemology is how we know it. Basically a bunch of worthless conjectures that don't really influence the universe or how things really work. Philosoph…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 11:34 PM
2

So, to shorten your sentence, she wrote philosophically about metaphysics. Actually, she wrote at least one book about each of the five branches of philosophy. Also, the problem of universals is a problem of epistemology, not metaphysics. On top of that, the problem of universals is/has been probably one of if not the most important issue in epistemology since the inception of philosophy in ancient Greece. "It's weird that two different things can be blue." No, it's not. "Its weird that some fin…
/r/MensRights12/08/14 10:20 PM
0

Ayn Rand does suck. She was an awful writer who had awful ideas. What a nuanced and convincing argument you've made. Totally undid all the arguments she made in her dozen or so non-fiction texts outlining important solutions to long held philosophical problems including the issue of universals.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 09:52 PM
7

The classic "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
/r/MensRights12/08/14 09:06 PM
2

Not clicking a salon link. They're the same people who routinely trot out the "Ayn Rand is a dirty cunt who took social security therefore capitalism sucks" article every few months.
/r/MensRights12/08/14 07:16 PM
1

"Emotional labor" ....Lmfao. Oh god. The lulz.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 09:52 PM
3

Wow. Just wow. So, what, it's impossible to have a free-market system that bans gay marriage? An odd idea. Marriage, as a state institution, can't exist at all under a laissez-faire government. I point you a number of US states I would argue that the US is a mixed economy, not a laissez-faire free market economy. And you can't be for redistribution of wealth without also oppressing minorities? The individual is a minority. So yes. If you are pro-redistribution of wealth, you are oppressing the m…
/r/MensRights02/08/14 09:32 PM
5

You're confusing liberal with socialist. ...ER, no I'm not. The word liberal has a pretty well accepted, though malleable, definition these days. Liberal is a purely social term, being the opposite of authoritarian That's factually incorrect. Liberal is absolutely not a social term, hence the phrase "fiscally liberal". As well, there is no way to separate the social from the economic. The power to regulate people's bedrooms and the power to regulate a person's business is fundamentally the exact…
/r/MensRights02/08/14 05:33 PM
3

I consider myself liberal. To me, this means equality for all, and the personal freedom to live your life as you see fit, and to choose your own morality. I only have one hard and fast rule: do not harm another human being. ...Er... the second part of this statement directly contradicts a LOT of what modern liberalism is about, including all forms of welfare and regulatory control.
/r/MensRights02/08/14 05:18 PM
3

He said "a right" as in an entitlement. Not right as in right or wrong.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 04:29 PM
3

Yeah no I'm not going to give Alternet any money. I'm just going to assume it's a bunch of bullshit created by taking a single sociology study extremely out of context.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 11:00 PM
2

Cognitive dissonance exists, so yes.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:35 AM
2

Should've changed it to "dick." If they're intelligent their head might explode from the cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 12:27 AM
3

You responded to a bot, fyi.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 06:28 PM
1

It's called "package dealing." “Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 06:27 PM
3

You're basically telling the guy he's full of shit with your comment here. Ahem... that's the joke.
/r/MensRights10/07/14 05:42 PM
2

Because reddit is not the place to be getting advice on serious situations, particularly legal ones. I'm not saying you should go pay a lawyer, I'm saying you should ask a lawyer before you make public a video that incriminates your wife
/r/MensRights08/07/14 07:12 PM
0

NO. BAD INTERNET PERSON. GO TO LAWYER WITH LAW DEGREE WHO WORKS AT LAW FIRM, NOT PUBLIC INTERNET FORUM. Apologies for the cruise control but apparently this isn't getting through.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 05:41 PM
1

If that's how it works it literally does nothing...
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:03 AM
3

I'm taking bets on how long it takes the SPLC to declare this new group a terrorist organization that is literally worse than Nazis.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 05:41 PM
2

Don't give Alternet, Salon, or anything on the Gawker network clicks.
/r/MensRights03/07/14 08:37 PM
3

Contract Anus = Lying Relaxed Anus = Truth That's how the FBI and MI5 do it. No, I'm not kidding.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 03:48 PM
1

I'm honestly surprised we haven't heard Mr. Mackey say something like this yet.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 03:21 PM
3

This is sick. Why in the hell can't they just give both courses to everybody? I just... I don't get how a reasonable, not-mentally disabled human being who grew up in a relatively freethinking western culture can not see the horrible sexism inherent in the split. Can you imagine an American school where black students go to a "Shoplifting: Why Loss Protection is Important" class while white students attend a "Insurance: How Does it Work?" class? It is insane to think that no one in the administr…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 03:18 PM
2

Individuals owe other people nothing more than respect for their individual rights.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 04:46 PM
10

So you're against laws that allow mothers to put unwanted children on the firehouse doorstep? And, of course, you must be against legalizing divorce.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 10:05 PM
7

I'm willing to bet you have very little clue about what goes on in that sub Is it really bad biology with very little research backing it being taken as gospel? Because literally every RPer I've gotten into a lengthy discussion with tended to bring up ideas they had taken as fact that were either heavily controversial or straight up had no solid evidence for such.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 03:34 PM
0

This only applies if you automatically agree that conscription is morally wrong. Why does it have to be automatic? I can present a pretty compelling argument that conscription is morally wrong. Being for gender equality does not require you to also believe that conscription is morally wrong. It's only a requirement if you want to be consistent. There is no legitimate, self-consistent foundation on which gender equality rests that does not also logically lead to constriction being morally wrong. …
/r/MensRights11/06/14 06:35 AM
3

You know Marx and Engels were spot on in many of their observations, its just that many of their solutions were flawed. Their factual observations? Sure. Their moral observations? No. They also dropped context like a motherfucker.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 05:09 PM
15

People don't need to denounce feminism in order to be allies of the MRM. They certainly need to denounce political and academic feminism.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 04:59 PM
7

The ethical solution to the slavery of African-Americans was not to enslave European-Americans...
/r/MensRights10/06/14 04:59 PM
-1

You found this on an anarchist subreddit. You will not convince anyone there of everything, they're already pretty far gone. They think socialism is compatible with anarchy, lol.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 04:23 PM
397

Jezebel is shit. Pointing out misandry on Jezebel is like pointing out Pro-Republican bias on Fox or Pro-Democrat bias on MSNBC.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 04:10 PM
–

...Why does this woman think taking pictures in a public area is illegal?
/r/MensRights08/06/14 07:23 PM
7

All they're going to do is blur the definition with some other version of the word. That's what dishonest debaters always do. Religious folk do the same thing with faith (meaning to believe something because there is no evidence for it) and "faith" (an amalgamation of hope and desire).
/r/MensRights06/06/14 04:43 PM
1

Hilariously, this would be the top comment if you reversed the genders and posted this in /r/feminisms.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 11:53 PM
1

Do you not think sodomy laws are abhorrent and ought to be repealed?
/r/MensRights05/06/14 11:52 PM
1

Are people on MRA who generalize women like this on the fringe or the majority? Easily the fringe. Like... it isn't even close. Honestly, approximately 60 seconds of looking through posts here could have told you that. Why do you think that feminists are victims if they are actively fighting for something? Because what they are fighting for is often a direct association with victim-hood. Like preventing divorce from being a default 50/50 split of the kids, or actively, violently protesting any d…
/r/MensRights05/06/14 11:50 PM
1

...Ha! The punch line was actually pretty funny. I am totally fine with this.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 11:34 PM
2

Catherine was indeed a serious OG.
/r/MensRights29/05/14 06:00 PM
5

No one implied any group is oppressed. We don't equate bad media coverage with oppression. That's feminist territory.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:19 PM
5

It is incredibly sad that people like you actually exist.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:44 PM
4

Pointing out the fact that he killed four men and two women is tantamount to saying the lives of the women don't matter? What are your smoking and where can I buy some?
/r/MensRights26/05/14 06:42 PM
5

I wonder if all the users who are quite clearly coming to this thread from other subs to vote will be shadowbanned. lol.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:37 PM
3

Do you really not see misogyny as a root cause, here? Not really no. I see mental illness as the root cause.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:33 PM
6

I hope my fellow members agree with me or I might just lose hope in this subreddit. The fact that you think this is necessary to say kinda proves you don't read anything here very often. No one advocates intimations of violence here. Pretty much ever.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:30 PM
9

...Yes. If you kill a bunch of people because they don't want to have a relationship with you, you are mentally ill. Period.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:29 PM
7

...Yes it absolutely is. Are you seriously that ignorant or just being sarcastic?
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:29 PM
3

...Have you rad literally any comments? None of them sound like this. At all.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:28 PM
4

...Feminism can cure mental illness?
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:27 PM
21

It's normal to be afraid when someone enters your space without permission ...Getting into a cab kinda constitutes permission for the cab driver to be near you.
/r/MensRights26/05/14 04:26 PM
1

Saying that a woman can't abuse a man because he's strong enough to stop her is like saying a cattle rancher can't abuse a bull because it's huge and can stomp him flat. Holy crap... this is a great simile! I will probably borrow this at some point, props to you Mr. Whisper.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 06:28 PM
2

...Missed the irony. Sorry :P Removed my downvote too.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:53 PM
3

To the people that worked that way, that was normal. The point being that "normal" back then sucked a LOT harder than "normal" today. Maybe somebody a thousand years from now when they have machines serving all their needs would look back on us today and exclaim, "Oh, how miserable they were!" They'd almost certainly be correct. In comparison, we'd be much worse off. But that's certainly not true. Human happiness is not the inverse of how many hours a day you work to make a living. No one is arg…
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:45 PM
3

No, not really. Romanticizing the hunter-gatherer is stupid. They often didn't know where food would be coming from, had to move near constantly, and could only support very small numbers.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:44 PM
3

You're not wrong, Walter... but you're an asshole. There were a million better ways to say this.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:41 PM
1

Its a sexist joke. As long as the person saying it is aware its a joke, its funny. If they aren't aware, than yeah. That's just straight sexism.
/r/MensRights10/05/14 10:51 PM
–

...Would that actually matter? If one could and did choose to be gay, would that suddenly make it OK to stone them?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 03:22 PM
20

Gotta love someone who's response to someone making a good argument is an accusation like "You just want to win the argument!"
/r/MensRights01/05/14 05:41 PM
2

There are plenty of bad eggs in the human race.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 05:38 PM
15

In public spaces anyway.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 04:22 PM
5

What is the alternative? ...The mother has to pay for the child? Or do we presume that sex is consensual and the unwilling father would have to prove that he didn't give valid consent? What standard of proof would we require in these cases? The same standard we generally require in all rape cases?
/r/MensRights24/04/14 08:01 PM
2

There most certainly is a massive attack on abortion access and birth control. Ironically supported more so by women than men. So a war by women on women. That totally makes sense right? It isn't a war on individual rights, its a war on women because one of the individual rights being attacked happens to only effect females. That makes sense.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 05:33 PM
1

Oooooh shit they're going to get quite a large crowd of protestors during the next club fair. Gonna be a shit storm.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 04:43 PM
2

Right, troll, thanks.
/r/MensRights11/04/14 01:57 PM
2

...Relevancy?
/r/MensRights11/04/14 01:48 PM
10

...buy it. That'd be the way to support it. The art style looks pretty awesome, and clearly the writer has some talent (this was a very harrowing depiction that didn't feel over the top and also didn't do one of those classic "focus on something else and imply the terrible thing happening"). The best way to support it would be to buy the comic, either digitally or physically. https://www.comixology.com/Invincible/comics-series/684 <sup>A</sup> link to this comic's comixology page if you'd like t…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 05:21 PM
3

I like how the majority... didn't care at all because none of the things she did were a big deal and were easily ignored. I don't get how they can't see the irony of that.
/r/MensRights04/04/14 07:41 PM
-1

Since violent revolution requires the banishment or death of original governing group and its supporters and the way I suggested only requires the retaking of something gained via extortion, they aren't morally equal. You have a very odd definition of extortion when it includes voluntarily hiring someone to work for you for a predefined wage that they agree to. No, labour creates that value. The factory was built by workers and the funding for it can be provided by the aforementioned credit unio…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 01:29 PM
-2

More like enact policies that aid the creation and growth of worker coops and credit unions and then let momentum take over. They're not just going to GIVE it to you. You have to take it. By saying you want to enact policies, you are admitting that you have to take it by force. Not morally any better than a violent revolution, still theft. And I don't consider most of the current owners of the means of production to be the "rightful" owners (in a moral and/or justice sense, rather than legal sen…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 01:35 AM
1

be in the best interest of all its people Socialism is in the best interest of the hard working capitalist? I think not. I don't think any socialist would claim it was either.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:44 PM
-2

They did exactly what communism prescribes farming wise. And millions starved because central planners suck compared to market prices.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:43 PM
-1

For instance, I consider myself a socialist and I want corporations and the like to be replaced by worker cooperatives and credit unions (and acheive this via the democratic process rather than revolution). ...lolwat? So people are going to vote and that will make the rightful owners of property give it away because democracy?
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:42 PM
0

...Literally nothing I said was about logic. I asserted arguments to communicate my opinion. If I wanted to actually convince someone I'd elaborate. I'm not sure if you're sarcastic or not, but either way it is wrong to call assertions logical. As well, being logical doesn't make an assertion accurate or valid.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 07:38 PM
–

...He's correct. Feminism is just another form of Marxism. Its wrong because Marxism is wrong. Dividing people into essentially arbitrary classes and pretending that some can be "good" or "bad" for those classes, or that those classes can take actions as if they were individuals, is a ridiculously flawed concept. The rich don't oppress the poor. Men don't oppress women. Governments and criminals oppress individuals.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 05:33 PM
3

ITT: A Feminist thinks news articles that cite 3 decade old sources that have been debunked many times over are a credible way to convince people who have done actual research.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:14 PM
0

...You just cited the telegraph and the guardian as a source. So no, not better.
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:12 PM
4

Do not, under any circumstances, talk to the police, about anything. Contact a lawyer ASAP. Listen to him or her and do EXACTLY as he or she says.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 03:05 PM
2

Alternatively... plenty of places in NYC don't exactly follow the spirit of the law.
/r/MensRights25/03/14 03:02 PM
1

Self esteem is hard to measure, but I suspect these questions do a decent job. Really? “I like the way I look,” “I like most things about myself,” “I’m happy the way I am,” “Sometimes I don’t like myself that much” and “I wish I were somebody else.” I don't like the way I look, I like plenty of things about myself, I'm not happy the way I am because I'd like to change, sometimes I don't like myself, I wish I were Bill Gates. How's my self esteem? Can you tell?
/r/MensRights25/03/14 02:59 PM
1

I may be. I get the two confused occasionally. Can't remember which terrible article came from where.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 03:58 PM
9

Slate is a shit-rag. No better than Jezebel or Alternet.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 12:37 AM
0

Thank you.
/r/MensRights16/03/14 11:27 PM
9

As in, they can often hit puberty later than some of the girls. People develop and mature at different rates. Boys tend to hit puberty later than girls which affects their development -- not in a bad way mind you. What does physical maturity have to do with the desire to sit still? [Genuinely asking, if you are aware]
/r/MensRights16/03/14 10:52 PM
14

It all depends on the child, but boys do tend to mature a tad slower than the girls making it difficult for some boys to "sit still." And by mature do you mean "becomes more obedient to authority," or "more able to take a situation seriously"?
/r/MensRights16/03/14 10:22 PM
3

...So... people. We fuck over people.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 07:46 PM
1

It was weird because they said it in a way like "you should care about EVERYBODY's problems!!" (except your own because they are nonexistent...) This is why Buddhism is toxic. Its just another anti-thought, anti-life religion. Comtean Altruism in Eastern mystical dress.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:37 PM
-5

Buddhism is as toxic as any other religion.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:35 PM
0

...Yes. It was called The Man Show, and it was awesome (until they changed hosts). Edit: Damnit, someone beat me to it!
/r/MensRights04/03/14 07:27 PM
3

Loved the bit about "this is the new original sin." Reminded me of Ayn Rand's tear down of original sin (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html).
/r/MensRights27/02/14 07:06 PM
2

I think we'd definitely notice if women pulled an en masse strike but i don't know that I'd say we'd be in deep shit. We'd be in deep shit. Trust me. We're talking about a large chunk of the workforce not showing up. Our basic infrastructure is mostly staffed by men (i say with no data to back it up beyond anecdotal) Without the data I have no reason to think this is true. Plenty of infrastructure is staffed by both genders (think teachers, administrators, nurses, secretaries, so many other thin…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:03 PM
4

*We would also be in deep shit if no women showed up for work one day *Women can, given the training, perform most (if not all) jobs traditionally held by men (alluded to, but not quite stated. I agree with both of these statements. Honestly, I don't think this is controversial. The question, however, is not can women work in coal mines and on oil rigs and crab fishing boats, the questions is will they want to? As of right now they don't have the same motivating factor men do (the absolute need …
/r/MensRights21/02/14 05:12 PM
0

In the US? Because they don't ask for it, because asking for it will make them less competitive. You better believe that if a more qualified candidate for a job asks for paternity leave instead of some other benefit, or asks for it to be part of his compensation, that he'll be getting it (if the company he works for is effective/competent). No different than a qualified candidate asking for dental coverage.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 08:01 PM
4

It's a gag gift for Valentines day that probably gets sold at Spencers or Gadgets and Gizmos (the same places that sell mostly naked women on posters and fake boob stress balls). This should not be offending anyone.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 07:49 PM
6

Because marketing. Can we not be offended by little crap like this please? This is exactly what I dislike about casual feminists.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 07:46 PM
2

Astonishing. Do you know for sure whether you're shooting blanks? For sure? No. But there is a reasonably high enough probability that he's not that he can say he's fairly sure. Not comparable at all to having had voluntary surgery that 100% means you can't reproduce. At what point would you tell your future partner whether you are? When you find out ASAP if you want to be with the person in the long term. Should she dump you? If she wants kids, yes. In any case, many women cannot have kids, not…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:48 AM
1

Again, you googled for "studies" for lean in, instead of a word like "synopsis" or "summary" or just "lean in wikipedia" ...because I've read those already. You and I both know you have the free will to click on links beyond the one that is at the top of the list. It was interesting and made a good, relevant point. 'm consistently amazed at the level of effort some people don't go to when "researching" topics they have already decided they are against. I've already told you I've read plenty abou…
/r/MensRights12/02/14 12:08 AM
1

You aren't making any sense. You're saying you aren't talking about the book, but you are talking about the book. Dude, you come on. A book and the arguments therein are NOT the same thing.
/r/MensRights12/02/14 12:05 AM
1

So you googled for any article which would argue against the book, rather than explain the point of it? No. I googled "studies for lean in book" and clicked the first link. If you'd like to argue against the argument presented I'll gladly relay it to you. I suggest that if you are ever asked to discuss a piece of text, a work of art, or book, that you should at minimum research the actual item being discussed at the basic level of what it is and its message, THEN research opposing and supporting…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:45 PM
1

You mean, the studies from the book. Which you keep saying "stop referencing a crappy pop psycho book"...yet the studies are the backbone of the book. That isn't relevant. I'm not asking about what the book says. If the studies are the backbone of the book, than viewing them will lead to similar conclusions as the book. That'd be what you want to do. So show us the studies. Every time I've referenced something, I get this "well, I don't believe this study" type of response with a "well, did they…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 11:17 PM
0

I didn't demand more info about the book. I asked for the studies. Which you've been asked for like 15 or so times and have yet to produce them. The whole point of this thread is that lean in, while it makes a salient point, probably overstated the effect, being pop psychology. Secondly, the proposed solution is probably more harmful than the initial bias. You've said nothing about any arguments or claims, you've just referenced the book without referencing anything that it based its arguments o…
/r/MensRights11/02/14 08:33 PM
0

Please stop referencing a crappy pop psych book that was formulated to sell on Oprah. Either link the studies or leave.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:42 PM
1

Compensating for that bias is important. Over Compensating however, is something that ought to be very very carefully scrutinized as it would probably be worse than the bias itself.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 06:41 PM
1

13 million off their prices would be like a fraction of a cent per car.
/r/MensRights11/02/14 05:34 PM
2

Robbing the poor by being voluntarily paid by another party who earned that money and had every right to distribute it and sure as hell wouldn't just give it away in her absence... What?
/r/MensRights11/02/14 05:34 PM
3

There shouldn't BE a draft.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 02:39 AM
4

Read his name. He's a troll.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 12:13 AM
2

...Human beings are absolutely not equal. We ought to be equal under the law but I'll be damned if I'm considered equal to a moron, or if a genius like Bill gates is equal to me.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:57 PM
4

Sit down, shut up, and steal money from people who earn it and give it to them.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 07:13 PM
9

The politically active (and therefore only relevant) part of feminism actively campaigns for discrimination against men.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:31 PM
9

The goal of feminism is gender equality. ...Which is why every feminist organization with political power explicitly states that gender equality is NOT their goal. Odd right?
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:30 PM
8

but many activists use it as a platform to oppose feminism and justify their own sexism. Show me one. Seriously. I've heard this claim plenty and never seen a single piece of legitimate evidence for it on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:29 PM
17

But judging the entire movement by a small group of uneducated radicals ...Not when uneducated radicals are the leaders of the movement and are nearly universally supported by said movement. Three KKK member's sayin' black folks are alright does not excuse the entire organization.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:29 PM
12

The primary and most powerful feminist political groups directly oppose equal rights.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:26 PM
-1

Lol. K dude. Later.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 07:22 PM
0

No, nearly everyone believes in a mix of collective responsibility and of individual rights Except they contradict. Very often. The fact that most people are ok with contradictions in their beliefs do not erase those contradictions either. There are no obligations to others without violations of individual rights (beyond the obligation to not violate individual rights).
/r/MensRights20/01/14 07:14 PM
0

It is, actually. The "base state of humanity" isn't for 2 percent to have 99 percent of the wealth either. And? I wasn't saying it was OK for a person to starve, I said the fact that you can starve is not a gun to your head. Most of those in the military are poor. Inner city recruiting stations are one of the most effective tools the military has. Sure. Liking someone has nothing to do with either logic or morals. I've inferred your morals and I think they're fundamentally wrong. I don't think w…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 07:03 PM
0

Only if by voluntary you ignore crushing poverty and limited options. ...Of course you ignore those things. They are not force. Crushing poverty and limited options are the base state of humanity. You can't call the fact that we're mortal and require food to eat a method of force. If I can voluntarily accept a minimum wage position or worse, I can voluntarily sign up for the army. Plenty of those in poverty DON'T enlist, and that is rather strong evidence that being poor doesn't force one to joi…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:49 PM
0

Do you think the US needs an army? Yes. Part of the proper role of government is protecting citizens from foreign invaders. How do you make sure that you have enough soldiers? You can't, you just have to make the best possible case. For just wars (WWII) and invasions, getting a large enough force shouldn't be that big of an issue. For more wars that tend towards injustice (Vietnam) or aggression, you might be SOL. Do you think it is fair that only some citizens carry the burden of being a soldie…
/r/MensRights20/01/14 06:16 PM
0

This would not be a victory. It would be another defeat for individual rights (AKA human rights). We should be pushing for the end of the selective service altogether, not its expansion.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 02:45 PM
2

If that's what the lawyer says, that's what he should probably do.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:43 PM
3

Good luck.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:43 PM
11

Pro-bono exists. He should be asking, or alternatively saving for a lawyer, and at the very least getting a free consultation.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:38 PM
40

Lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer. Seriously. Lawyer. Lawyer. Did I say lawyer? Yeah, lawyer. Shit... starting to lose its meaning... Attorney. Attorney. Attorney.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:26 PM
3

Er... so where's the actual paper? This research looks as crappy as most of the sociology that goes the other way.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:23 PM
4

having a good dad is infinity more important than having a foreskin. So concentrate on that. This. Over and over again this.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 05:22 PM
1

I am a laborer when I work for a wage. I am a capitalist when I hire you to do work and sell it for a profit Hence, a fluid and arbitrary concept. How can you be a part of one class in one moment, and the other the next, and then call history a struggle between capital and labor? Are you struggling against yourself? I also noticed you couldn't come up with any of that fallacious utter nonsense of tripe that you suppose Marx wrote about, though. Telling. The labor theory of value had been discred…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 04:47 PM
1

Capitalists: people who get their income from owning the means of production. Laborers: people who get their income from selling their labor-power. Pretty easy, distinct definitions. I own a tractor. You do not. You work for a wage at a big company. You save your wages. You hire me to do some tractor work on your property that will allow you to sell it for a profit. Who's the capitalist? Who's the labor?
/r/MensRights02/01/14 02:38 PM
-7

It lead me to support an economy made up of worker cooperatives and credit unions Those things can and do exist in a capitalist economy. But in a socialist economy I would not be allowed to own a factory and employ people. I'm not seeing what your preference for coops and credit unions has to do with that. As well, market socialism requires theft. Worker coops and credit unions simply cannot create and finance the types of operations that take advantage of modern manufacturing. That isn't to say…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 12:11 AM
1

(mixing one's labour with unclaimed resources is the basis of ownership). In what way does this bring you to a theory that denounces property rights? I could see agorism, but socialism? Plus, this is the basis for ORIGINAL ownership, not ownership in general. If this were the basis for ALL ownership, trade wouldn't be ethical.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 12:01 AM
-35

Marxism actually has a meaning. ...Yes. I know. I'm saying Marxism's meaning is tripe to begin with. His description of Capitalism is invalid and filled with fallacies, his historical ideas are utter nonsense, and his entire theory of class structure is arbitrary and logically contradictory. Do you actually think "capital" and "labor" are valid classes while "men" and "women" are not? They are equally arbitrary. Capital and labor are even more arbitrary given that the distinction between them is…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:34 PM
-21

Marx explicitly spoke about economic class. Which is just as arbitrary as gender class. He described the classes as labor and capital. A totally arbitrary distinction that needs some serious fudgy concepts to make work. If I own a hammer that I purchased for very cheap and someone pays me by the hour to fix their fence (because they do not own a hammer), and then sells their house for a profit because it now has a nice new fence, am I capital or am I labor? What if I bought the fence from him, f…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 06:22 PM
–

Gonna be very hard to reconcile what is generally an individualist philosophy of human rights (IE individual rights) with a political philosophy that outright rejects individualism and wholeheartedly embraces collectivism. If socialism is valid, feminism has a good point and men (as a class because classes exist in Marxist theory) actually have been oppressing women for forever. In order to reject the idea that the genders are classes, you have to reject the idea of class (in the Marxist way) en…
/r/MensRights31/12/13 05:10 PM
2

Not going to mention that those rich white men hold the same collectivist political views as she does? I'm shocked.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 05:04 PM
6

This was wonderful. Thank you for posting it here.
/r/MensRights31/12/13 05:00 PM
1

H to the R. Go go go.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:57 PM
9

Oh and if you're married/living with your SO you have to get her consent first. ...You're fuckin' with me right?
/r/MensRights30/12/13 04:43 PM
19

Get a goddamn lawyer.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 06:22 PM
2

In truth, without any evidence, most accusations will fall flat on their faces. The fact that you don't say "all" instead of "most" is precisely the problem.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:27 PM
3

I just think that it can be used to bring about a lot more good than bad. How? What good could possibly come of it? You literally CANNOT investigate anything reported because it has no evidence BY DEFAULT!
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:24 PM
5

ou're attacking a tool that has the potential to do a great deal of good for male rape victims. How? With no accuser, there can be no evidence, and hence no crime in the eyes of any just system.
/r/MensRights17/12/13 08:21 PM
2

... so explain.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:32 PM
1

I don't think it matters what someone's done to obtain their wealth, what hard work or personal effort they've expended, there is a level of luxury they are not entitled to before someone else can eat. So I assume you donate all of your money to Africa then and live in abject poverty and oh wait you're on the internet.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:20 PM
1

Giving out birth control for free would be an example of welfare. So no, not a win. Reducing welfare is a win for people who don't like welfare. I don't particularly care WHY you're stealing from people, just that you're stealing and stealing is wrong. This argument DOES hold, however, for voluntarily helping less well off people get access to birth control. Which is something I am A OK with. Go buy a big box of condoms at Costco and hand them out in the hood! That sounds like a wonderful way to…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:18 PM
2

Another false dichotomy. I would (and have) gladly help those who I see suffering and believe worthy of that help. That doesn't make it ok to point a gun at a rich man's head and demand he pay for a poor man's food.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 10:13 PM
4

Your assuming I'm OK with welfare...
/r/MensRights11/11/13 09:12 PM
4

Except previously I could get a plan that didn't cover things I literally can not possibly use.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 07:16 PM
6

I meant that you ate forced to buy coverage for something you literally cannot use.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:38 PM
–

They simply mandated that insurance cover it ...Which forces people who don't want it to buy it. Not ok. mostly the companies liked that because it's cheaper to pay for birth control than it is to pay for a baby. Which is why they offered plans that didn't cover it before? Wah?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 04:58 PM
1

I think it could be a bit more objective than using an average, but as far as essentials go this is perfectly reasonable. Well said.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:14 AM
-4

Violating another person's boundaries Boundaries are personal. I think your concretes are fine, but your abstract is terrible. You need a better, more objective, definition.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:16 AM
11

There are some men that actively deny oppression in the past. Because "men" have never oppressed "women." Throughout the vast majority of history, a small group of elite individuals oppressed the rest of the individuals in an area either by convincing them they're worthless and need to serve in order to make up for that (AKA "original sin") or directly through threats of violence. People were oppressed in many different ways. Some weren't allowed to own property. Some were forced to fight and di…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:08 AM
1

I like how you were polite and receptive until she went over the top, but instead of passively aggressively responding and then posting to reddit about how creepy her pms are you assertively told her to stop talking too you and stopped taking to her.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 09:03 PM
3

Because some of us believe that freedom of association is a natural right that extends directly from the right to their life held by all humans. Any law that dictates association in any way violates that right.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 02:45 PM
8

And yet if you look at the comments section that doesn't seem to be so clear to feminists commenting @ Time.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:46 PM
5

But your frat boy jock types seem to be the epitome of traditional masculinity The prejudice is strong in this one.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:41 PM
7

The problem is you're using a definition of patriarchy that has literally NO grounding in feminist theory. If Patriarchy is simply a subconcious preference for men in positions of authority than patriarchy causes literally NOTHING feminists say it causes, including rape, "objectification," the supposed wage gap, and all other kinds of supposed sexism against women.
/r/MensRights21/10/13 06:07 PM
1

Fucking someone you hate IS dirty/dangerous though.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:28 PM
4

... I'm not sure why you think that contradicts what I just said. Part of the reason a liberal might want to bang SP is because of theirheavy negative feelings towards her making the sex "dirtier".
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:16 PM
13

I have. I'm not seeing how that's particularly bad. Hatefuck is not at all ewuivalent to rape. It is more equivalent to a woman wanting to fuck someone who dangerous, like a convict, which is a pretty consistently popular fantasy. The point is that sex with someone you have strong negative emotions for (of hatred or anger or fear) can be hot as a fantasy. I will say I've never heard of a Hatefuck actually happening.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 04:51 PM
2

"How do you believe she feels having been through this?" "Hopefully horribly guilty for the lies she has told. Next question?"
/r/MensRights16/10/13 06:16 PM
0

We do agree that racism is bad right? Sure. Bad things don't necessarily need violent government intervention. Stepping on legos is bad too, but the government probably shouldn't be making anti-leog-on-the-floor laws.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 03:49 PM
1

Lmfao.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:54 PM
2

It is amazing how unbiased TVTropes can be some times. Their article on Objectivism is also very informative.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 05:38 PM
2

Fair enough. They gave called for the wage gap to be eliminated and that includes thesethe separate but nothing specific has been written. I concede the point to you.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:58 PM
-2

...That'd be because demi-socialists stole the word liberal.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:46 PM
-14

Socialism was good Socialism was never good. It was a terrible idea when it was created that already had key flaws (relying on the labor theory of value which had been already debunked numerous times at that point in history) that were insurmountable.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:45 PM
2

Again, missing the point. The point is that if they were discussing a field in which men vastly out-salaried women, they'd be calling for immediate action. It is pointing out the irony of that and indicating that that irony shows that HuffPo is a misandric source of misinformation.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:43 PM
0

In other news /r/MensRights[1] learns that male athletes are paid waaaaaaayy more[2] than female athletes. /r/MensRights[3] (and the rest of the country) refuse to call for boycott!! I think the sarcasm went over your head.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:29 PM
1

City Wok?
/r/MensRights08/10/13 12:08 AM
1

Debatable. They essentially run by a Mafia, which isn't particularly different in practice than communism. They've basically introduced enough markets to not collapse while dropping the terrible moral justigication of communism.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:06 PM
2

When you effectively double the supply of doctors in an area...
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:58 PM
2

Not a joke. Elementary school is a shitty babysitting service with about a 20:1 ratio of kids to sitters. I tutor kids in this age range. They learn the exact same shit over and over from 4th grade up through 7th. There's a reason Chinese kids come over here are incredibly surprised by how little math knowledge American college freshmen have. We're taught fucking bar graphs 10 to 12 times by the time we're done with high school. it is patently absurd. Schools exist to create good, complacent, ta…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:56 PM
3

Had to read this a few times before I got the joke. Well done.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:51 PM
1

No. There is not an epidemic of basically any crime in modern nations. Crime across the board has been rapidly decreasing for decades.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:49 PM
2

China is hardly communist. They're essentially a autocratic state with heavy corporatist leanings at this point. They haven't been communist since the Great Leap Forward failed spectacularly and starved millions. The Chinese government may not be the best on human rights, but when something is straight up stupid, like communism, they tend to abandon it pretty quickly.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:48 PM
0

...Ok? Paid leave should not be mandatory anywhere, as it heavily violates individuals right to negotiate their own contracts voluntarily. Businesses should have the right to prefer to hire someone who won't take off to be with their kids over someone who will, or vice versa. Some companies will value attracting better talent with paid leave packages, and others will be hurt too badly by the training costs for temporary replacements. People who want leave will seek jobs with leave, people OK wit…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:46 PM
-3

They both treat groups of individuals who share meaningless traits as classes that can be examined and directed as a collective whole. Collectivism is at the root of a lot of evil shit, including racism, sexism, and Marxism.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:43 PM
2

a) when women go into a field, the pay goes down. I think it is highly likely you are confusing correlation with causation.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 02:55 AM
5

Citation please?
/r/MensRights07/10/13 02:55 AM
4

When it isn't a really shitty babysitting service?
/r/MensRights07/10/13 02:53 AM
4

Neither of these things seem like something someone healthy couldn't just suck it up and deal with in an assertive manner.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 05:40 PM
1

American minimum wage jobs leave people below the poverty line, so they definitely cannot do shit to save money and invest in the future. If you work for minimum wage and aren't a teenager, you done fucked up at some point.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:51 PM
15

Misandry for the sake of comedy is a lot like misogyny for the sake of comedy or racism for the sake of comedy or etc etc etc That scene is supposed to be awkward as fuck. I don't think anyone should be up in arms about it. Especially when things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efz8nIgIp5I are accepted (and hilarious).
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:45 PM
0

To be funny. He said it to be funny. That's his job.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 04:50 PM
1

t's not like Marxism, where Marx was one person and all of the theories belong to him Good luck getting Marxists to admit this.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 04:39 PM
5

Point of order: Robinhood did NOT steal from the rich. He stole BACK from the government that was overtaxing the populous and gave the poor BACK the money the government (Sheriff of Nottingham et al) had taken from them.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 11:50 PM
3

I actually just applauded aloud for a few seconds before I remembered you can't hear me. Bravo sir. Very well done.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 11:36 PM
4

Ms. Rand would be proud.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:43 PM
48

To be fair, it is offering an ear to talk to, not a line to the police.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 04:41 PM
8

"equally unrealistic female fantasties in entertainment catering to women that no one dares criticize." Every rom-com ever created? Every single show on ABC Family? Every movie on Lifetime?
/r/MensRights19/09/13 05:12 PM
1

Yes to places that are so resource poor you would have very little chances. ...So? Hunting and gathering was a shit existence to begin with. If you want to hunt or gather you don't get the benefits of modern society. If I passed a law saying for example every male must send a check to the nearest woman over the age of 16 every Sunday in April or face jail time, and then said "But your free to move if you don't like the law," that isn't really considered a free choice. I agree. But I didn't mean …
/r/MensRights19/09/13 04:48 PM
1

For example you can't be a hunter gatherer reasonably Of course you can, you just have to move! Or for example nomadicism is highly restricted via the vagrancy laws and land use restrictions. And yet there are thousands of hobos... millions if you count other nations.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 04:26 PM
1

... I'm not seeing how this involves the violence part of the arguement. Slavery absolutely involves violence.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 02:43 AM
1

...Okey dokey then. Semantic confusion. So, why exactly do workers not have the choice (or right) to leave? Because from where I'm standing every single person in the US has both the right and the choice to leave their job at any time for any reason unless they specifically signed a contract stating otherwise (and even in that case I'd think the contract would likely be thrown out for most reasonable reasons).
/r/MensRights18/09/13 09:17 PM
1

Oh. Right. I like transhumanism too but that doesn't mean being biological is slavery.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:44 PM
1

... what? You have a right to leave your work. You can choose to leave. What is the difference?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:43 PM
1

That is a ridiculous misuse of the term slavery which is an insult to those who were actually enslaved. What you mean to say is that scarcity exists and that sucks. Scarcity existing and the fact that we require scarce goods to live in no way shape or form slavery.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:36 PM
1

And that difference is... what exactly? Unless you just mean to say that I always have a right to leave because it is a natural right, which I'd agree with.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:28 PM
1

And nothing in that description even approaches slavery. In fact that is the state the vast majority of humanity had lived in since humanity has existed.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:22 PM
2

Wage slave is a contradiction. Wages implies voluntary work. The fact that nature will kill you if you don't work to get food is not slavery.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:12 PM
2

Alimony could be slavery, yes. The vast majority of Americans do not owe alimony and we are discussing the majority.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:11 PM
2

... literally the only thing that can override my right to leave is violence. So what? I'm sorry but what exactly do you think "made to" means if not by violence?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:10 PM
2

What other methods of survival are illegal that aren't immoral like stealing?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:09 PM
3

Easy, claim to be transgendered. Say you're a woman. When they insist you act nothing like a woman, insist back that there is no such thing as gender roles don't exist. When they point to your penis, insist gender has nothing to do with genitals. They have nothing left to point to without causing contradiction.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 04:13 PM
2

You are not a slave just because you feel like one. Your feelings are a reflection of reality based on your values. They are not a representation of reality. And in reality, there is no legitimate definition of slavery that applies to you (given that you aren't one of the few women and boys being forced into prostitution by violent human traffickers).
/r/MensRights18/09/13 04:09 PM
2

It's not classic style slavery. It's corporate slavery. Dude, when you have to qualify a word like "slavery" you're being both obtuse and essentially deceiving your reader. Slavery is slavery, A = A. Slavery means being forced to work via threats of violence. It does not mean having to work so you can eat. That's just the state of nature. Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Via violence. Yes. Assets are tracked (your emloy…
/r/MensRights18/09/13 04:02 PM
4

...Yes, but that isn't slavery any more than gravity means being forced to stay on Earth when you jump. Slavery implies HUMANS will do you physical harm if you attempt to not work.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 03:37 PM
2

If they're state enforced they need to have a male-only car to not be sexist. If they're private, I do not think any rights are being violated.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:50 PM
2

I was told that was a loaded question because it invited respondents to commit themselves to what may later form part of a contradiction Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas, Rand... they're all spinning in their graves.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 02:53 PM
7

I think that's being a little bit unfair to the point. It isn't about offence, it's about a hostile atmosphere. Please define "hostile atmosphere" in a way that doesn't amount to "place where I feel offended often." I don't think you can without talking about something totally unrelated to the article (IE actual threats). Even if this never turns into something more, living in that kind of atmosphere can't be pleasant Correct, being offended isn't pleasant. It still doesn't DO anything to you. I…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:51 PM
-8

Not really, no. Maybe when it was first created, but fracking takes place FAR deeper than the water table. The only way it will damage the water supply is if something goes terribly wrong and all the the fail safes all fail at once, which is incredibly unlikely and unavoidable in basically ANY resource extraction endeavor.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:37 PM
3

What happens when one is offended? ...Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is like they think they're going to be offended and suddenly have AIDS.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:25 PM
9

"Do men know what it feels like to be looked at like we are looked at? To have gawking, bugging eyes glancing over your skin and body like it isn’t even your own? Like it isn’t even a body? To feel someone’s gaze penetrate through your clothing like that?" If we did, we'd find out it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It literally hurts no one ever. Being offended is not that terrible. Do you know what happens when you're offended? Nothing. Nothing at all.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:18 PM
-10

Please don't argue against fracking. It is both an amazing technology and overwhelmingly good for humanity.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:15 PM
2

...Because women can't buy condoms?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:40 PM
1

little to no experience dealing with members of other races/cultures Is not a philosophy or an organization. So while it meets the subsections requirement (if you could somehow prove that she had proof that the people she was about to meet had little to no experience dealing with such, which I think would be impossible as it is a pre-judgment), it does not meet the binding philosophy requirement. It would be fine to generalize by saying you think the KKK members you meet will be racist. It is no…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 03:30 PM
1

If she were judging a subsection of white people with a particular philosophy about race, your analogy might actually be valid.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:40 AM
1

But if the policeman searches a car without explicit consent and says later he was reading body language, or that the person stepped out of the car and therefore implied consent, then he's not legally protected. From the other thread. This person has no idea what they're talking about. Stepping out of your car and leaving it unlocked is implied consent to search in almost every state. Nothing to do with MR, just thought I'd point it out.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:59 PM
17

Funny, anecdotally, I have found the exact opposite to be true. The boys in the advanced classes were not popular. The girls mostly were, with the exception of the super-try-hards who were not popular in either gender.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:39 PM
3

And every citizen of the now two major Soviet powers that are not directly involved in The Party.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:37 PM
3

My god. This post is amazing. Well said sir/madam.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 08:39 PM
5

Even in first world countries where women are relatively empowered, there is still a wage gap Not really, no. That's been debunked ad infinitum. Our culture sees it as just fine to blame the victim, even though the rapist is capable of controlling themselves, even if the urge is strong. Fat load of bullshit. Feminism also seeks to empower women in countries where gender equality is even worse. Very good. We want to create a world where all women have a right to have an education. No one has the …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:56 PM
10

because it shows that women earn less for the same work. In what way does it show that? Being in the same field is not the same thing as doing to same type work or the same amount of work or the same quality of work.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:55 PM
4

There's a fine line between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome It is actually more like a chasm. They're totally different concepts.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 03:01 PM
4

My initial reply was emotionally fueled and not as rational as it could (should) have been. Good on you, for acknowledging that you ought to be rational. Too many people use "everyone is irrational sometimes" as an excuse not to admit that being irrational was immoral and wrong. Kudos. (No /s whatsoever)
/r/MensRights19/07/13 06:27 PM
2

Lol. Capitalism, the system that has lead to the liberation and empowerment of more women than any other economic system in the history of human kind, is apparently key to exploiting women. lol.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 03:38 PM
8

I believe in limited government and equal opportunity under the law (not equal outcome or equal opportunities in life, just under the law).
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:52 PM
1

I think you are wrong about Christianity, being a Christian is about following the world of Christ not the old testament its generally accepted the Jesus word replaces that but since I'm not a Christian I'm not gonna argue it. ...Theologists disagree with you. Heavily. And the Teachings of Christ weren't exactly the greatest things in the world either. Loving God doesn't actually DO anything in this world.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:47 PM
4

You wouldn't suggest someone should stop being a Christian because the westbro baptist church exists? ...Actually yes, yes I would.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 10:45 PM
1

The Food and Drug Act, all laws criminalizing possession or ingestion of any substance, all laws prohibiting any kind of voluntary labor (minimum wage, etc), the Selective Service Act, the Civil Rights Act (particularly the portions that deny freedom of association, a direct result of bodily autonomy), the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security Act... I could go on. Referencing gender in the context of my perspective does not a red herring make. I didn't say it was. I said it was ironic that s…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:46 PM
2

If you really think that the medicalization of abortion clinics isn't an attack on bodily autonomy, you're simply not paying attention. Put it this way: If there was a requirement that prior to sperm donation, you had to get counselling, the facility had to be hospital grade, and a waiting period existed prior to donation, that would be an infringement on your right as a man to bodily autonomy (control of your sperm). Ok then, do you agree that literally every law involving medicine or drugs is …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 06:20 PM
3

Texas is currently attempting to pass a bill (after a very popular filibuster by Wendy Davis) to effectively shut down nearly all Planned Parenthoods, on the grounds that they should meet the exacting standards of a hospital. Nothing to do with bodily autonomy. This is the result of involving government in medical procedures. North Dakota bans all abortion (regardless of reason, health or welfare of the mother) after a fetal heartbeat is discovered (in some cases, within six weeks well prior to …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 05:47 PM
1

NOW apparently.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:23 PM
1

If the gay right's movement was fighting to prevent trans issues from being brought up because they'd distract from fighting homophobia, or if they were fighting to institute hate crime legislation that punishes thoughts or hate-speech legislation that punishes speech than he'd be correct in that statement. If they were merely fighting against homophobic culture, and not being political, that'd be A OK by me. Except that isn't at all what the feminist movement has done in the last few decades. T…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:15 PM
6

Check out legislative happenings in NC, OH, and TX. Being required to view an ultrasound means Roe has a foot in the grave? Laws banning late term abortions (something Roe doesn't touch ATM) means Roe is dying? Are you insane? These laws are BAD, I agree, but they certainly aren't serious challenges to Roe. And any parts of these laws that violate the Roe ruling will be struck down post-haste, and rightly so. Roe is as strong as ever and unless three judges randomly decide to completely change t…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:12 PM
2

that women have full bodily autonomy Did I say full? Men don't have full bodily autonomy either. Selective service? No one does: Mandatory health insurance? Taxation? Anti-nudity laws? Drug laws? Any law regulating what I can do to/on my own property that doesn't hurt anyone else? So long as Roe stands, women have just about as much bodily autonomy as men do. And they certainly have more than children/infants and (in the eyes of some people who I don't agree with but might not be wrong) fetuses/…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:02 PM
0

herefore, since it went to court, there must be some other evidence, correct? He possessed cocaine and rape cases often don't need very good evidence to go to court, just a well paid lawyer who knows a judge.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:00 PM
3

if culturally women are required Please explain how someone can be "culturally required" to do something and what physical consequences denying that requirement will have. You may not consider that to be discrimination Because by the very definition it isn't. why aren't the men staying home. They don't want to and their wives do want to in the majority of cases. This is basically a way of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring any problem that you don't want to solve. No, it's acknowledging…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:59 PM
1

But I think, much in the same way that society discourages men who want to be stay at home dads, it also discourages women who want to go into STEM I don't think 'society' particularly discourages stay-at-home dads. So right off the bat I don't think the comparison is relative. I think the reason most dads work is because most dads WANT to work, and NEED to work. Yes, there is a social expectation for men to work, and that might be why men choose to want to work but that doesn't remove the fact …
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:40 PM
-1

Of course he disagrees. He's being charged with sexual assault. If a woman accused me of messing with her when she was unconscious, my natural response would be "no I didn't, you were awake". And without any other evidence, this shouldn't even go to court.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:29 PM
9

She thinks she was passed out because she can't remember. This happen pretty often with drunk people, its called "blacking out."
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:28 PM
2

T'was sarcasm.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:24 PM
0

To be perfectly fair, as long as there is gender inequality in certain areas, such as STEM (EE/CS classes have about 10% women. In many foreign countries it's close to 50%) there is a problem This is simply false. There is only a problem if discrimination is the root cause. I would argue that CHOICE is the root cause, and hence this isn't a problem. As long as 50% of CEOs are not women, there is a problem. Again, this is 100% incorrect. It is only a problem if DISCRIMINATION is the causes, and a…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:14 PM
2

If you think women have bodily autonomy currently... lol I had no idea Roe v Wade had been overturned...
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:12 PM
2

The fact that assholes exist does not mean there is a conspiracy to keep women out of STEM. Assholes discourage all kinds of people from entering all kinds of fields.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:11 PM
12

There are still vast pay differences between men and women in most Western countries Citation seriously necessary.
/r/MensRights03/07/13 03:10 PM
2

In many countries pregnancy is not a choice. ...Good thing this article has nothing to do with said countries then, isn't it?
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:35 PM
6

Women aren’t keeping men out of these gatekeeper roles, the imbalance is there because relatively few men are interested in occupying them, but as a consequence picture books tend to reflect female tastes more than male ones. I love how this stays entirely reasonable and levelheaded throughout. If it was the reverse, there is no way in hell this line would've been included. The opposite probably would have been heavily implied or outright stated as incontrovertible fact.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 08:25 PM
4

A study released last year in the Journal of Human Resources confirms my suspicions. It seems that behavior plays a significant role in teachers’ grading practices, and consequently, boys receive lower grades from their teachers than testing would have predicted. Anecdotally, I can say that every teacher I had in pre-undergrad that included behavior in grading was female, and every teacher I had that could give a fuck how you behaved if you learned the material was male. I'd like to see some sta…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 08:19 PM
2

There are only so many times even the most brazen among us are going to get rejected before icily retreating into non-initiation mode forever. And just in general, we keep tabs on these kinds of things. A week goes by without sex? We notice. I get the feeling men don't monitor the situation in such a macro sense. As far as you're concerned, a good sex life is just having sex when you feel like having sex. The irony is so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 08:11 PM
2

He was calling HIM the victim. Reread his post.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 05:36 PM
-4

Because you mentioned Sherman's March in a way that might be construed as justifying or defending it. I'm not saying you were, I was just stating that one cannot.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 03:04 PM
5

But I am wary of "pro-lifers". Many have their heart in the right place, but many are judgemental sex-negative pricks. Well said. Judgement is for individuals, not groups.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:45 PM
–

The fact that a small percentage (tiny actually) of people affected by Sherman's March owned slaves does not excuse or justify the horrible war crimes Sherman and his troops committed...
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:43 PM
32

I don't think the gender make up of the coordinators is as relevant as the fact that Title IX in and of itself is biased and unconstitutional legislation.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:41 PM
1

My point was that just because someone is paying you a salary doesn't mean you've created wealth.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 01:08 PM
1

Wealth is not money. Money is not wealth.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:12 AM
1

I hope you're a troll because you're rather pathetic otherwise. I wish you happiness bro.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:36 AM
1

I'm not dealing with these red herrings. Later. The fact that you can't fathom how a credit default swap is a form of insurance just tells me your not interested in actual discourse. Well that along with a hilarious comparison of credentials, as if that was relevant to a discussion on the morality of wealth. A topic you're all too eager to ignore in favor of baseless attacks and a financial industry discussion that is not relevant. Anyone with the money you supposedly have at the age you suppose…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:33 AM
0

This is hilarious. You're attributing the results of market forces to manipulation. You say I don't understand financial markets but I don't think you understand markets in general. And then you complimented Venezuela. I'm out. Have fun thinking I'm crazy and I'll do the same.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 12:21 AM
1

I traded in volumes of a few hundred thousand. In a room with 12 other guys who were doing the same. A bachelor's degree means nothing. Neither does a level three certification. That was why I specifically said it was irrelevant. Get back to me when you actually work in the financial sector. ...I don't plan on working in the financial sector, so cool beans. You'll smell the stink on it soon enough, I'm sure. Smelling the stink is not evidence or a particularly good argument. We went long on ener…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:32 PM
1

$10 jeans every 6 months, ...Because $10 jeans are your only choice right? It isn't like there are expensive brands still that last for years... oh wait. Most corporations aren't committing fraud? What do you call credit default swaps, securitization, and ghetto loans? Forms of insurance. Not entirely sure what "ghetto loans" are. I don't think you understand the concept of fraud. Also you seem to be under the impression that the majority of corporations exist in the financial sector. I'm licens…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 08:17 PM
1

Notice how Levi's jeans don't last the decade they used to? Chinese manufacturing just isn't on pars with the better materials and workmanship American made used to represent. Notice how Levi's don't take three days pay to buy anymore? American manufacturing processes just aren't on par with Chinese prices. The market has spoken: people by and large prefer to spend smaller amount of money periodically than spend one big sum once and have to wear old jeans for a really long time (granted that the…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 07:37 PM
3

Meant to say definitely, not definitively.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:45 PM
2

Should we have bombed the shit out of Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Our hand was forced. Not really seeing how this is relevant. Yes, in context dropping the bomb might have been justified (though I know quite a few historians who disagree with that and the jury is still rather out on the subject, from what I've seen). Wealth creation is good for who? Pretty much everyone. See: Neolithic revolution, Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, modernization, etc... Wages are stagnant for the middle class And? The…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 06:43 PM
-1

Arguing semantics is cool.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:10 PM
4

Hitler produced the shit out of the world And he created no wealth. In fact, he destroyed a shitton of wealth. Any history book could've told you that. Don't you wish that he had smoked a joint and been a better painter? Sure. I just wish harder he had directed his charisma and drive towards a productive activity instead of the irrationality and evil of collectivism and war. Production is neutral. That depends on how you define production. Wealth creation is good. Making a bomb that blows up a g…
/r/MensRights25/06/13 05:09 PM
-2

No. Greed is the source of most wealth on Earth. And wealth is a representation production, and production is good. The creation of wealth is definitively good.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 04:22 PM
4

Greed is the source of all evil on earth Irrationality is the source of evil. Greed (want/desire) has, historically, been the cause of most good on Earth.
/r/MensRights25/06/13 03:49 PM
13

TVTropes is surprisingly objective. Their article on Objectivism, for instance, is incredibly fair, unlike what feels like the rest of the damn internet.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:32 PM
1

Would a funny song make people cheer for a man who shot a woman for chewing gum? Depends on the crowd. Reasonable people? Sure. Politically correct people? Fuck no.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 11:29 PM
2

I agree and disagree. I certainly think this posts title is an overreaction. But I also don't think the blog post was benign. To the people hating on Canuck: Calm the fuck down, he's right, you're making us look bad.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:47 PM
5

If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” ...And she can't just say the latter because...?
/r/MensRights24/06/13 08:45 PM
7

I wasnt claiming it doesn't exist. I was stating that I don't believe it is common among non-morons, even sexist ones.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:41 PM
12

that carries the attitude of "I know all about this because I'm a man" or "you don't know anything about this because you're a woman". I've quite literally never seen this and I know some pretty sexist people.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 07:51 PM
1

I had a great job with a blue-chip company I don't think so. Seems like she had her own money, one hopes she wouldn't get alimony.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 07:47 PM
2

It exists.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:01 PM
4

By the author of that post's logic, he or she can't know your perspective thereby rendering their entire condescending point moot. Rand called this the fallacy of borrowing the concept. Like saying "reality is an illusion."
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:34 PM
1

I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that women, on average, have a higher standard that they hold there home to as far as organization goes.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:20 PM
1

Trololololololo
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:19 PM
3

but constantly saying stuff about obviously bad women won't change the fact that they are bad I agree, though I would point out that the problem isn't that they're bad, it is that they aren't treated as such by the media/populous.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:15 PM
1

Don't you know? Progressives couldn't give a fuck about intellectual diversity, they just want a diversity of skin colors and sex organs.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:12 PM
8

I'm not sure exactly how all that lovely debating of premises reached that completely unrelated conclusion.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:08 PM
5

And I hope we see a greater amount of married couples choosing that path in the future! Why does it matter? At all? Why should the gender make up of a field of labor be meaningful in any way?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:59 PM
-3

She's butthurt about a troll and fed said troll an amazing amount of material to work with.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:40 PM
10

but doesn't think there's any cost-effective way the school could find another curriculum. ...Editing a document to this extent takes about ten minutes. Tops.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:35 PM
-5

Respond telling her that the Nuremburg defense hasn't been particularly effective... ever.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 05:34 PM
6

Yes... the fact that we don't have awareness campaigns for prostate and testicular cancer despite being far more deadly than breast cancer is totally oppressing women. ...What...
/r/MensRights10/06/13 04:01 PM
1

The different flavors of collectivism are all at their root basically identical in practice.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:56 PM
2

This single argument basically shreds the entire concept of the general pay gap.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:55 PM
2

Is that not the standard definition? A system designed and in place to help men at the expense of women using political and social power?
/r/MensRights09/06/13 10:02 PM
1

Perhaps the issue isn't whether patriarchyTM exists, but whether it was actually oppressive. If it wasn't oppressive, than definitively, it was not patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/06/13 09:53 PM
1

The funny part is NO ONE will be offended by a hypersexualized male. Almost ever.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:20 AM
6

Seriously. Gender Studies is a massive joke, even more so than the rest of the social "sciences".
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:14 AM
2

This is satire right? The people commenting on the site don't seem to know.
/r/MensRights17/05/13 08:35 PM
2

but she can't lift anything over 10 pounds Bullshit. I hate the fact that females are always downplaying their physical strength to get out of doing any physical work. I closed at Bed Bath and Beyond pretty often. The female employees never did shit.
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:06 PM
3

NOTHING you say to the police can EVER help you. NOTHING you say to the police can EVER help you. NOTHING you say to the police can EVER help you. Needed to be quoted multiple times. "Anything you say can and will be used against you," implicitly implies NOTHING you can say can be used to help you. Cops literally ARE NOT ALLOWED to testify on your behalf to help you. If you say 500 things, and 499 of those things make it clear you've done nothing wrong and ONE of them can be construed out of con…
/r/MensRights15/05/13 07:00 PM
3

Poverty is not a cycle. Poverty is the default state. /Standing Ovation I've actually said this to my friends many times before. I'm happy someone else is using it. I was more referencing the fact that getting out of poverty is hard and getting out of riches is easy. The point is that "class power" and "class oppression" is a transient state and temporary unless you're employing violence to keep things in that state. Yes.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:13 PM
1

As anyone with a mop knows, domestic duties are not Glam! Yes, because boy toys don't glorify a shitty job either -_-
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:10 PM
1

Thomas Sowell... what an economist!
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:04 PM
0

...Not quite seeing the relevancy of this to success? Poverty is certainly a cycle, but it is an obviously breakable one, while success is not a cycle at all.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 07:03 PM
2

Bullet dodged. The irony is that that young lady worked in the social work world and dealt with people who had had children way before they were ready every single day. This is more common than you'd think. Think about the type of person who is likely to want to be a social worker.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 06:56 PM
2

The vast majority of successful people in the developed world were born into it ...Statistically this is false. Over 50% of the current top 10% were not there a decade ago.
/r/MensRights14/05/13 06:49 PM
1

I will sexualize whatever the fuck I want. Sexualizing something is not shaming. That equivalence is disgusting.
/r/MensRights10/05/13 07:54 PM
1

Guys might get based on their looks but they don't care half as much as girls for the most part. Studies have shown this is probably not true.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:42 PM
4

Ellis Wyatt style for the win.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:41 PM
7

And this is why Republic > Democracy.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:40 PM
1

Data. I'll see if I can find it. The IQ distribution for men is wider than that of women. But speculation would work also: count the number of male inventors and geniuses compared to the number of female. Count the number of mentally impaired/stupid males compared to females. Just off-hand, it becomes pretty clear that the bell curve for males is wider. Not that that means anything when analyzing an individual of either gender.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 06:36 PM
1

On average, intelligence is about equal. More male geniuses and retards though. Wider bell curve for men, higher bell curve for women.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 04:09 PM
1

She acted with the reckless emotional ignorance of her age group. ...So if a middle schooler raped her he shouldn't be punished? the fuck?
/r/MensRights09/05/13 03:47 PM
1

The mind isn't void of content. Seriously, I've studied this. What knowledge are we born with? In what language is that knowledge held?
/r/MensRights06/05/13 03:27 AM
1

Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. This does not mean that humans do not have certain tendency within their interpretation machines, so to speak. It only means the mind is void of CONTENT, not ability or inclination.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 02:50 AM
1

Really? I thought the original meaning was referring strictly to the content of the mind not the mechanism. Basically a refutation of Plato's shadow world idea.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 01:03 AM
1

Tabula rasa refers to the minds content, not it's abilities or tendencies.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 12:49 AM
1

I just dont see why a student somehow becomes a competition to a professor. I thought they were there to teach. We aren't actual competition. I've met a lot of professors who are quite bitter about being professors. Those types tend to not like intelligent students because they recognize that said students will probably be more successful in their field than they are.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:08 PM
2

She then told me in front of the class "i will not help you so you can make more money than me". This has been the mentality of almost every bad professor I've ever had (spanning three different universities/colleges).
/r/MensRights05/05/13 09:05 PM
1

I was really pissed, but apparently she later said it was because programs have to be written exactly as stated. Which makes her a douchebag. Because that is fucking retarded. Switching "greetings" for "hello" should not reduce your score at all. Any teacher who does reduce a score because of something so ridiculous is clearly a petty piece of shit who is simply looking for any reason to deduct points because they're envious that his/her students are clearly more talented than they are and proba…
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:55 PM
2

However i got an 8 because i was supposed to write "greetings" instead of hello You teacher is a douchebag even disregarding his/her sexism.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:52 PM
2

"NOT CHOOSING TO RUN YOU NINNY" Is the appropriate response.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:50 PM
1

All of this assumes that human beings start life as a "blank slate" and that biology plays no role in the way you think or behave. I'd just like top point out that instincts and biological influence absolutely do not invalidate Tabula Rasas.
/r/MensRights05/05/13 08:44 PM
1

The irony of this is thick. Like, super-duper thick. Like frozen molasses level thick.
/r/MensRights29/04/13 04:19 AM
1

Good thing he said phobia then isn't it?
/r/MensRights28/04/13 08:20 PM
1

So if I find out my date has been hiding the fact that she's a mother from me and I am no longer attracted to her I'm afraid of mother's? Absolutely ridiculous.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 07:43 PM
-1

You've addressed none of my arguments and simply asserted victimization. How cliche.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:08 AM
1

Damn straight I'm arguing about semantics, i.e. the meaning of words. Of course I'm against using words without regard to their meaning. He made and consistently applied a meaning. I'm not saying what he did should be done in scholarly articles or research papers. We're on a social news website. His argument is NOT made invalid by his incorrect usage of a word because the IDEA behind the word is still valid. The thing is, there is an actual history of people using "utility" to mean "ability to m…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:07 AM
-1

It's not for whatever reason, it's because you are transphobic. Am I a homophobe for not wanting to date a man? Am I a marxphobe because I don't want to be friends with communists? Absurd. If you are just open about that, then your problems will solve themselves: I don't think very many transgender people want to date horrible transphobes. But don't pretend that your reasons are anything but transphobia, it's clear from your comments that you don't think transgender people are as good as cisgend…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 04:02 AM
1

His misuage of the word "topological" made it look like he doesn't know what he's talking about, as he was using the word incorrectly. No, it did not. The rest of his thoughts were clearly articulated. You're focusing on the usage of a single term outside of its normal context. Normally we call this "arguing semantics" and it isn't normally considered a very valid or strong argument against a position. Go ahead and replace the word with another you find more acceptable. Does the meaning change a…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:59 AM
-1

I don't think that attraction is beyond criticism. For example, if you refuse to date Arabic people because you just hate everything Arab, I don't think we should just accept your racism as your personal preferences. I agree. I don't think not wanting to date a trans-woman is anywhere near that example. At all. it is far more akin to not wanting to date an Arab because I don't find Arabs attract5ive for whatever reason. I, for one, would not want to date a trans-woman. I am not attracted to a wo…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:52 AM
1

A couple of physicists wrote a book about certain groups in the social sciences misusing language from mathematics and the physical sciences. You should give it a read. Getting uppity about semantics when the words are being used consistently and ARE NOT trying to package deal a particular set of other thoughts is not helpful. I doubt the scientists are upset over their words being reused. More likely they are upset that people are package dealing their ideas with other ideas. Particularly for s…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:43 AM
3

"there are already many communities devoted to these topics, which is why they are not common on r/MR," is to suggest that the bulk of r/MR concern is on straight men's issues (no surprise). ...You seem to think /r/MR is a person. Which is silly. I'm not arguing that when gay or trans men face suffering, MRAs aren't seconds behind appropriating it (We can all agree that MRAs are very good at appropriating LGBT suffering). Lolz. Appropriating. So bringing attention to the struggles of a particula…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:39 AM
-1

I'm implying that the essentialization of "biological" gender over everything else is Not done in that comment. He was commenting that, in reality, people do care. And they have every right to care, right or wrong. Overcoming their caring will not be done by ignoring it. to tell transgender people that their identities are worth less than those of cisgender people. Bullshit. The idea of "biological" gender is always associated with some sort of moral value Again, bullshit. YOU are associating it…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:36 AM
2

Again you've missed the point. No where is it claimed that "the only issues that are MRM issues are forms of oppression which are experienced by white, western, straight, cis men." It is claimed that those are discussed more often in this particular community because other communities exist for non-white, homosexual, or trans specific problems. That does not at ALL imply that those issues aren't a part of the men's rights movement, only that they are not discussed as such.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:13 AM
5

...So did you not pass reading comprehension in high school or what? And even taking this one step further, the only issues that are MRM issues are forms of oppression which are experienced by white, western, straight, cis men. ... Officially, r/MR supports the LGBT communities, and universal equal rights for people independent of gender, ethnicity, gender assignment and sexual orientation. My brain...
/r/MensRights28/04/13 02:45 AM
1

(transgender people only have a "surface" gender identity, not a "biological" one ...Are you implying a transgendered man is biologically male? Because he is not.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 02:39 AM
1

...He's using an alternative definition. Happen literally all the time in social science discussions, particularly those of a philosophical slant. This is not a difficult thing to understand, particularly because the word is so clearly being used consistently.
/r/MensRights28/04/13 02:38 AM
1

In what sense are you using the word "topological"? I can not see the connection to how the word is usually used[1] . In fact, it just sounds like nonsense in the context of your post. Than you aren't very intelligent. He used it consistently to mean "outwardly presenting as".
/r/MensRights28/04/13 02:34 AM
6

How about bringing in a logic text book and explaining to her what a straw man actually is and isn't?
/r/MensRights25/04/13 03:13 AM
3

Patriarchy continues when men continue to to be the ones in power Men are not the ones in power. Individual people who happen to be male are the ones in power. Men as a gender did and have done literally nothing to cause this. As opposed to letting those who want to be breadwinners, CEOs, senators, generals attain those positions based on their abilities, without regard for their sex. This is pretty much what happens now, whether you want to admit it or not, except for perhaps the Senator. But t…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:22 AM
1

It's like having a law saying that breathing is a crime if you're a male, and that law is not usually enforced because ... duh. It becomes a way to entrap people and screw them over for arbitrary reasons. I know people hate her but this is appropriate so damn often: "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaki…
/r/MensRights21/04/13 09:06 AM
1

Can I wash out your moth with my man soap? Lmfao
/r/MensRights20/04/13 04:22 AM
5

The eventual end game of all collectivist thought.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 12:08 AM
3

The funny part is that, when it comes to perception by the opposite sex, the EXACT opposite of what we normally believe is true. Women judge men's looks far more harshly than men judge women's looks.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:16 PM
3

My favorite example is black Americans in DC. The political representation is 90% black in DC... and yet blacks don't do particularly well there at all. On the other hand, Asians have next to zero representation in California, and yet they do quite well there.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 11:14 PM
0

Political Representation Theory is bunk. Asians in California pretty much destroy that notion. As do blacks in DC.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 05:51 AM
5

On average anyway.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 01:23 AM
2

Precisely.
/r/MensRights15/04/13 01:22 AM
15

shit dude go back 50 or 60 years. marilyn monroe and carole lombard would be considered "plus sized" now. No. No they would not. This is simply false. the problem is that he range of "attractive" weights has become far narrower than those that are healthy This has been the case for both genders throughout all of history and is not at all a serous problem. It is amazing that so many people can accept that people do not choose their orientation, but insist that nothing but cultural factors influen…
/r/MensRights15/04/13 12:15 AM
14

Ah this old arguement. The queens and princess were chubby! Being chubby was a sign you had access to lots of food! Sure. But who did the king fuck? Hint: Not the queen.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:58 PM
2

...Why? What's wrong with sex work?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:35 PM
-5

They do not owe you a job. You have no right to decide what qualifications any business should have for who they hire. The fact that they don't hire men just means that they'll miss out on 50% of the possible 10/10 perfect employees.
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:35 PM
2

That depends on how you define "equal" as well as "rights." What does equal mean to you? What is a "right," in your view?
/r/MensRights14/04/13 11:20 PM
1

A child? Exercising a mature, conscious decision to accept or reject something that they are taught? You got to be kidding me. Who said it was mature? Also, how old of a child, because I'd agree that immature minds do not consciously decide such. 5 year old? Sure. 14 year old? He is capable of reason, and can choose to use it. Where the exact line is is, obviously, highly contextual. As well, I thought you merely referring to the child of parents in the same way that I, an adult, am the child of…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 08:14 AM
1

Of course, if you realize its a trick question, you can stop for a second, "use reason", and make the rational, correct choice. Yes. The point I'm trying to make with this is easy to make someone act irrationally Absolutely. . You'd think this isn't really a big problem, right? Its not like people are gaming us and then asking us trick questions every day, are they? Well, Companies spend about half a trillion dollars a marketing. Billboards, TV ads, promotions, etc are all, in a sense, attempts …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 08:04 AM
1

Oh yes, we do. This is why children end up believing (most of the time) the religion of their parents. That is not involuntary. They voluntarily choose to believe the religion of their parents. That's exactly why you had to add the parenthetical "most of the time". But beliefs can be broken, and they can be forced on people. The fact that they can be broken is proof they are made voluntarily (except, of course, in obviously rare cases of serious brainwashing). Just because they aren't necessaril…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 07:10 AM
1

But that's a circular argument, you see. If there's no free will, someone choosing to believe doesn't actually CHOOSE to believe. He just thinks he CHOOSES to. I'd say you're the one with the circular argument. The fact that one CAN believe they have no free will requires free will. You're simply insisting that free will and mechanical determinism are not compatible. I believe they are. But belief isn't a choice. It's a cognitive process. Belief is a voluntary cognitive process, and therefore a …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:58 AM
1

I guess my response to that would be that a lot of people don't have as much say in whether they act rationally or not. You're incorrect. If you are human and not mentally ill, you can use reason. That is not to imply that reason is perfect, or that you have all the necessary information to make the best choice, but you can certainly USE reason. Given a certain set of conditions, I'd wager you could very accurately predict whether a person would make a rational choice or an irrational one. That …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:51 AM
1

Noun The theory, now largely discredited, that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection... In what way are individuals NOT subject to Darwins laws of natural selection? Are you implying that natural selection does not occur in humans? Because that is downright absurd. Those genetically prone to early cancers are less likely to pass on their genes compared to those who aren't. Humans are certainly LESS subject to nature's whims (Thank you air co…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 06:32 AM
1

It is a poisonous trend meant specifically to turn you against your own mind. Do your best to think it out and realize why it is silly to say or think "I choose to believe free will doesn't exist."
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:24 AM
1

Really? Neoliberialism is basically just one step away from social darwinism. Ah the lovely sound of smear words. Would you like to define social darwinism, specifically, and why, specifically, it is bad? It often go so far as to assume a "marketplace of ideas", where the best ideas will be the ones that propagate themselves the most, whereas shitty ideas will fail. If this were true Marx would have died totally unknown. Plato too. The myth of the "rational-agent" is basically the engine that po…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:20 AM
3

The amount of unreported rapes far overshadows the amount of times where a man is accused of a rape he hasn't committed. But which problem lies with something we can directly control (IE the legal system) as opposed to something we can't (IE individual women's psychology)?
/r/MensRights13/04/13 05:19 AM
1

God. Such hilarious contradictory theories. Aristotle would flip out.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:48 AM
1

Eh? Government redistributes wealth almost by definition. GWB put forth and got Medicare Part D passed. <_<
/r/MensRights11/04/13 04:42 AM
7

The short answer is no. The long answer is, for a subset of jobs, a wage gap does in fact exist, even when we control for all measureable factors. However, these jobs, which are primarily high level executive and director positions, are the overwhelming minority. You mean the jobs that rely almost entirely on negotiation to set salary? I'm shocked.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 12:17 AM
2

Of course being in the minority of examples in comparison to men who have held power consistently in many forms since a long long time Men have never held power. Individuals, many of whom happened to have male genitalia, held power. Their power was not a result of their gender, but rather either there ability to charm or submit the tribe. . Them being a woman does not mean specifically that they anti-patriarchy in the first place. By any meaningful definition of patriarchy it absolutely does. An…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 08:13 PM
2

Seems like if you replace Traditionalism with Patriarchy it would mean the same thing. Not even if you squinted a bit. At least if people would understand that Patriarchy only benefits men that are in positions of power who harm men with little power. Replace "men" with "people". Much more accurate. Ignoring the fact that women have had significant indirect (or even direct) political power throughout history is simply absurd. See: Alexander's Mother, Catherine of Russia, Queen Elizabeth, Mary of…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 05:54 PM
1

Explain to me how men in ancient Rome set up a system to oppress women. Or any culture. Don't tell me the results tell me how the collective you grieve to be responsible set the whole thing up
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:35 PM
1

Is
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:23 PM
1

And using a lens that assumes some group had oppressed another I'd objective? Please
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:23 PM
1

Not the Marxist definition of property sorry I misuse the term occasionally. What I mean to say is that a slave having marginal amounts of power in particular social situations over another slave is hardly a vast difference or a conspiracy. I'd also are that women had plenty of social power in other situations. For instance they were rarely expected to defend th tribe in war (for good reason).
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:14 PM
1

Under tyrannical governments where people are essentially owned by the tribal leader there is no concept of personal property.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:04 PM
0

How exactly can property own property? All people were property of the tribe.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:50 PM
1

The difference is not significant. It is the difference between being able to win the lottery and being able to win a little bit bigger lottery. Men who are not elite were still systematically oppressed. A poor man had about the same chance as as poor woman to rise up: a chance that rapidly approaches zero for both genders.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:30 PM
0

Not particularly. The odds of being an elite were still astronomical for men. And the reason behind the elite status had little to do with gender as evidenced by numerous powerful queens and matriarchs.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:48 PM
1

I really don't understand how you can look at history and believe that women were even equal, let alone on top. Where the hell did I say they were on top? I'm saying the whole notion of looking at history through the eyes of any group is a flawed method to begin with. Throughout the VAST majority of history, ALL humans were oppressed by a very small minority of elites. The social dynamics that existed between men and women under those kinds of conditions (slavery to the tribe/community/city-stat…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:19 AM
1

...Every feminist who has ever said male gender roles are the result of patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:13 AM
-1

The simple fact is that both genders face massive hurdles. And none of those hurdles was caused by a patriarchy.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:37 AM
0

It simply refers to systematic benefits of being male over being female. No, it does not. It refers to systematic NET benefits of being male of female. And that has rarely existed throughout history, certainly doesn't exist in modern times.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:33 AM
5

It all depends on how you approach the topic. People in that subreddit are likely on more of a default defensive because of the additional amounts of abuse women and those who speak about gender equality take on the Internet and through daily life. I'm calling bullshit on this. I'm willing to bet a significant amount of money they take no more abuse than the average internet denizen. in fact, I think they hand out more abuse than they receive, on average, though I wouldn't bet on it. If you appr…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:54 PM
8

How could you possibly even come close to making a statement like that. Because it has been confirmed by decades of evidence?
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:14 PM
9

and places like /r/feminism[1] and more espouse, to my understanding. Have you BEEN to /r/feminism? Go there and suggest women raping men is a problem.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:14 PM
11

She's frustrated, just like I am, that people in this subreddit and elsewhere on the Internet view feminism as an enemy, when it fact we should be allies. Kindly start protesting all the the mainstream feminist groups who actively support measures that reduce the overall rights of men. Then we might believe you. But it does bring up a point that's worth mentioning. Women especially, as the underprivileged and often marginalized sex Yeah no. Women are not and have never been underprivileged or ma…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:12 PM
27

Instead of yelling at people on the street, why can't you just calmly challenge them to a formal debate at some given time and hash it out there? ...Because they have no chance once logic and reason enter the equation.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:04 AM
-2

Perhaps he just means "a benefit to society as a whole". Which is not a relevant sentiment. Society ISN'T a whole. Something cannot benefit society, it can only benefit individuals IN a society, at the expense of other individuals.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:31 AM
-3

Alright; it is a "public good" ...You've yet to actually look up what a public good is defined as. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good So no, abortions are not public goods. All of the "societal costs" you mentioned are just other examples of you forcing me to pay for someone elses stuff, that shouldn't exist in the first place. I'm sure there are plenty more reasons for a society to pony up a few dollars for the birth control or abortion Society doesn't have any money at all. …
/r/MensRights03/04/13 12:12 AM
-4

I consider not being knee deep in unwanted children a public good. ...You'd be wrong. You don't get to "consider" something a public good. It either is or isn't. Public good has a specific technical definition. You are quite free to donate your time and money to helping women who want them get abortions though! That is freedom. Forcing me to pay for their abortions under threat of violence is not.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:38 PM
10

They don't speak muricn' awesomely. FTFY
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:35 PM
-4

As far as I know you cannot dictate to the government specifically how your tax dollars are spent. My point was that taxing someone to pay for a non-public good is denying them control over their lives far more than the FACT of reality that things cost money.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:33 PM
7

I meet up with her and ask if "she truly thinks that I raped her". She avoids the question and runs off. So... "No, I don't think you raped me, but I have some irrational reason that I'm upset we had sex so rather than take responsibility for my own actions I'll destroy an innocent man's life."
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:15 PM
3

Progress!
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:14 PM
-7

I'm glad that women in France will have free access to contraceptives, and (should they require one) abortions. Giving people control over their lives is a good thing! What about the control over my own money to not pay for other people's medical procedures?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:12 PM
2

Stop trying to teach physics to a lamp.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 07:20 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 07:16 PM
-1

Feminist theory is compatible with altruism and mysticism, the primary modes of ethics and metaphysics accepted by the majority of citizens.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 11:35 PM
3

...Duh?
/r/MensRights30/03/13 09:47 PM
8

Give more women guns and encourage them to go kill people?
/r/MensRights30/03/13 08:19 PM
1

"She turned me into a newt once! ... I got better."
/r/MensRights30/03/13 08:43 AM
1

No clue. Been a while since I saw it. Like I told the other guy, check lexus if you have access.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:02 PM
2

Your best bet is searching lexus-nexus. I've seen at least one convincing study that clothing has little impact on likelihood of sexual assault, but I don't think I marked it. I'll search my bookmarks, if I find it I'll post it. Either way though, nexus fo sho.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 10:09 PM
1

Do we know for a fact that clothing has zero impact on the likelihood of rape? Yes, actually. Their have been plenty of studies done on this.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:53 PM
6

If I start telling my ideas about how the British Royal family are really shape-shifting reptiles, I fail to see where exactly the "good" is in my exchange of ideas. The good is we're now aware you're an idiot not worth listening to. =)
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:51 PM
22

"He offended me for treating me like a guy and saying off-color, sexual jokes! He's harassing me!" Which is code for "the buffer of treatment I've always enjoyed as a woman has disappeared, and I'm not strong enough to deal with the real world around me, so it must change to suit me." Nail on the fuckin' head.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:34 PM
3

This post deserves a standing ovation. I'd stand and clap... but this is the internet. Well said, mam.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:31 PM
0

You form a Randian society, you get Bioshock, dude. You're aware Rapture would have been pretty awesome if not for the whole addictive genetic mutations thing right?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:27 AM
8

Too often, if a woman is raped, her rapist is found not guilty because she 'asked for it' by what she was wearing, how drunk she was, etc. If someone can find a single instance of this happening, that'd be cool. Somehow I'm doubting it.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 08:12 PM
4

Gender Studies is not actually a class. It's a joke. Please make that clear to your teacher if you'd like to fail with pride.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 05:56 PM
2

One comment from a very stupid congressmen: Apparently indicative of a trend across American conservatives. Hundreds of comments from feminists on multiple sites and articles: No but those people don't represent ALL feminists.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:23 PM
1

None at all. Women, throughout history, have been protected, provided for, and cared for by men. Sexual dimorphism is essentially proof that this is built into our biology. The social structure of past civilization existed primarily to foster this relationship between men and women, men as providers and protectors and women as home makers and child rearers. Women and men are totally free in the modern world to choose what role to take. But in the past, it was not so simple. No gender, as a whole…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:35 PM
1

And while there is a great deal of truth to that statement There is quite literally no truth to that statement.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 08:25 PM
1

or the next few months she followed me around like a puppy, calling me her ‘best friend’ while I just hoped she would go away, it was more convenient to have her follow me around than be an ass and tell her to find someone else to stalk. Have we learned our lesson? Telling someone to go the fuck away is far better than leading them on by accident. There is no maybe. There is only yes and no. Maybe means whatever the other person wants it to mean. Other than that, I'm obviously very sorry this ha…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 06:22 PM
14

Good luck with the protesting and chanting about how you're a terrible person in your near future.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 10:24 PM
1

The whole "Woman gets kidnapped, man goes on quest and gets her back" thing almost never happens. Well duh. But the "Men doing hard work X for reward Y which primarily benefits the woman he has children with" thing has been pretty much constant throughout history. The "Child gets kidnapped, mother goes on quest to get them back" is quite common. I'd play a good game with this plot. But the reason it hasn't been done is because girls hadn't yet made up a large enough piece of the market share for…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:49 PM
6

And that's Anita's point exactly. It's massively massively more common than the device of a female hero saving a male victim. Which pretty accurately reflects reality as well as the vast makeup of the gaming industry's target market, yes?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:06 AM
1

I agree with your first statement, but not with the second. The reason men are main characters more often is the same reason actors make more than actresses: women, by and large, direct more money to movies than men, so their preferences are reflected on screen. And women, on the whole, prefer male characters. George Clooney simply sells more tickets than Megan fox.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 10:29 PM
0

Thats a nice thought, but ultimately incorrect. Men still make up the vast majority of important positions in society. Some women do occupy these positions. Hence movies like zero dark thirty.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 09:39 PM
2

Yes. It tells me men have generally been more motivated and able to pursue independent knowledge than women due to a combination of biology and relevant social factors. I'm not seeing your point.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 09:37 PM
1

why are there all these men talking about important things, but not women? Because, throughout history, the average male conversation has been far more likely tt be important than the average female conversation, which has been far more likely to be about a relationship. Denying reality is all this is.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:12 PM
1

is that there is an institutionalized power differential between the oppressor group (men in the case of sexism) I will bet you one million dollars and my testicles no one on the planet can give a precise, logically consistent definition of an institutionalized power differential. Almost half of this paragraph is nonsense parading around as science. It is disgusting on so many levels.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 07:26 AM
3

Then I highly recommend "Philosophy, Who Needs it?" It is mainly about the importance of philosophy in general and is a great introduction to her non-fiction.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:49 AM
4

Aristotle may be regarded as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind. The Aristotelian revival of the thirteenth century brought men to the Renaissance. The intellectual counter-revolution turned them back toward the cave of his antipode: Plato. ~Ayn Rand The full excerpt form the lexicon: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/aristotle.html Regardless of what you thi…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:13 AM
2

More like a vast over-generalization that excludes non-Western history. You either believe reality exists and is real, or you don't. And humans have tended to do a LOT better when they (their intellectual movements) believe the former rather than the latter.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:48 AM
2

Er... me paraphrasing a more modern Aristotelian.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:48 AM
3

History is split into two kinds of time periods: those when humanity followed Aristotle and flourished, and those when humanity followed Plato and floundered.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:08 AM
1

Lawyer, police, therapy. In that order.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:47 AM
2

God I love Thomas Sowell.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:11 PM
2

A consequence of the law of identity is that if X has a property, then X has that property. Oh good god fine, this is what I meant. Thanks for being petty and pedantic.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:23 PM
5

That is not the law of identity. Sorry, but you don't actually know what you are talking about. The law of identity is simply that for any X, X = X. A thing is equal to itself. It is not what you said. You've reworded what I said. X has specific properties. Therefore, X is X and X cannot be Y. It is possible for things to be themselves while also other things are equivalent (note that equivalent is not the same thing as equal) in some respect to them. Not when the two things are in direct contra…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:16 PM
3

Things have specific properties that determine what they are. Collectivists believe individuals in a group are equivalent to an individual. Hence, they disregard to law of identity by default.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:08 PM
4

Are you saying that feminists deny the law of identity? Are you kidding me? Collectivists deny the law of identity by default.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:00 PM
5

A feminist is also a collectivist? Excuse my incredibly shock and awe.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:28 PM
0

I recommend starting with 'Anthem'. Short, sweet, to the point, and very well written. Plus, if you like Anthem, you'll probably like both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:34 PM
8

We'd still be farming for food. Women had no reason to innovate, as they had no trouble getting laid.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:33 PM
6

So you are saying that you should be able to put up a "No blacks allowed" sign on your gym? Yes. I, being of rational mind, would of course never give such an organization my money. But they have every right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Or more to the point "blacks pay extra"? Again, yes. And once again I would not patron such an organization and would encourage others not to patron it as well. I'd even praise those who decide to actively protest outside such an organization on publ…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:37 PM
-1

Yes and where it isn't it should be. Freedom of association is paramount. If a gym will attract more revenue by charging different prices to different types of people, they should have every right to do so. They own the gym, the gym is not yours by right. By what right would you force them with violence to make ANY contract they do not wish to make?
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:22 PM
6

Extreme feminism is mysticism. Hard core environmentalism is mysticism. It is not surprising they have crossover.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:16 PM
0

This kind of thing makes me wish Ayn Rand were still alive to write Op-Eds.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:34 PM
6

I don't understand how this whole "testosterone makes men more violent/dangerous" argument is just simply taken for fact Particularly when those are documented symptoms of testosterone deficiency in older men. Men with higher-T are more often calm and more able to stay clear headed in a crisis.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 10:33 PM
0

AH, gotcha.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:48 PM
0

They are considered private organizations, not businesses selling a product What is the difference? The private organization charges a fee in exchangeable for a service
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:31 PM
0

Do you mean to say that you can volunteer yourself out of, say, paying taxes just because you choose to? What do taxes have to do with capitalism?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:35 PM
0

Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are not just about mode of economy;they are primarily modes of governance. The mode of governance for capitalism only allows voluntary interactions. So... what?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:25 PM
0

In the context of this current discussion, "control mechanism" implies any form of authority that is not completely voluntary. In what way is voluntary trade of property derived from property rights (the basis for capitalism) not voluntary?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:10 PM
0

Not according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. An, in my opinion, unconstitutional and certainly immoral part of the civil rights act. You should define your usage of The State and justification for calling it violent. The State is defined as the organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force or violence within a geographical area. Literally everything it does is backed by the threat of violence of some kind. That isn't exactly hard to prove. Think about what happens if you d…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:09 PM
0

Because a court of law wouldn't even bother to see such a flimsy case.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:04 PM
-13

Freedom of association. No big deal dude. They have every right to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons. Be concerned with systemic issues that lead to violent power (the state). Shit like this isn't worth your time. The guy who sued Hooters to try and get hired looked like a petty idiot, not a gender warrior for equality.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:53 PM
7

The age of consent in NY has some exceptions but a 19 year old and a 16 year old seems to still be a clear cut case of statutory rape. I do believe in NY we have a plus minus 3 years law.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:50 PM
1

In what manner is capitalism a control mechanism?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:48 PM
1

should be charged because that crime leaves virtually no evidence ...Other than a hundreds of witnesses at the trial and police station you mean.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:44 PM
1

I posted this further down, but if someone freezes up and doesn't fight back, what evidence is there that they were raped? How can that be proven? It can't be and that sucks. Your point?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:44 PM
0

Which is why we're using the conclusion found by ANOTHER court, one usually biased against the defendant.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 01:43 PM
1

Was nazism right wing in the first place, didn't the nazi gov. control the market to an extent? To an extent? They WERE the market in Germany.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:34 PM
1

Said the people of the world to Atlas.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:28 PM
2

Health is most certainly NOT a right. Health is not something you do, it is a property of living things. Health is derivative of REALITY, not other humans. Rights are that which guide us in our interactions with other humans, not our interactions with reality itself.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:27 PM
1

Her children should get free healthcare Paid for by who? Will you enslave the doctors or everyone else? she should get maternity leave And you are totally free to give it to her if you are her employer.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:26 PM
1

I unfortunately have no idea what the defintions of "weapons" are. Frying pans? Throwing a glass/vase? Firearms? If you use an object to hurt someone worse than you could have without said object, the object is a weapon in that case.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:25 PM
1

Protest. Please.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 03:16 PM
1

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:33 AM
1

That's a net loss right there. "Take my word for it, if every time a president was about to put our kids in harm's way, we we're thinking about our kids and grandkids, it just wouldn't happen," he said. Wow. This guy is a moron.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:33 AM
1

70% abstention in several scrutins is not "people who voted". Yes it is. Democracies don't claim to actually represent the populous, they claim to represent the voting populous.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 09:51 PM
1

It's simple, a country where the same political party has the majority every where (district, regions, senate, parliament, executive) and shares it biases with justice even, is not a democracy. If the people voted them in that way, how is it not a democracy? Democracy doesn't mean the government is filled with people from all sides, it means the elections are filled with at least two sides that are marginally different from each other.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:48 PM
0

France is not a democracy anymore, the left has power everywhere and it seems people are happy about it. I disagree that they are no longer a democracy. This is simply the natural end for a democracy, and it is reached faster when you lack Constitutional protections that must be ignored or sidestepped to reach it. Paraphrasing Plato, once people figure out you can vote yourself gold from the treasury, they will do so at every chance they can get. The constitutional republic with a strong, diffic…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 07:38 PM
2

Tests can be very discriminatory. SAT tests, for example, have been shown to discriminate against those who aren't middle class white kids. And by middle class white kids you actually mean kids with parents who have excess cash, free time, and give a shit about their education. These tests assume certain cultural knowledge in the questions. Hello person who has apparently never taken an SAT! Nice to meet you.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 03:43 AM
2

Pretty irrelevant though, considering you have no legal protection from the government AND you have no guns should it go that far.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 03:38 AM
3

Statistically, the odds of you falling in love with a terrible person are low. Try not to worry so much.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:11 AM
8

That could be a journalistic word My facts might not be correct but I'm going to write an entire article as if they're certain.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:41 AM
8

ostly the movie shows how a suspicion of sexual abuse can go wrong if it's not handled by professionals. Dude, the professionals are more often worse than not. "Repressed memory" is possibly the biggest piece of bullshit ever created by psychologists.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 11:37 PM
1

You are mistaken. It does. That's the point of it. Considering there is literally no way to prove the "all else being equal" clause. An owner can literally just say he doesn't like the person as much as the other.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 03:52 AM
3

But the bill has nothing to do with all else being equal...
/r/MensRights07/02/13 01:00 AM
3

If they're equally qualified and have the same job, why shouldn't they be paid the same? Tons of reasons. Productivity. They work at different companies. One has expressed that they might be leaving soon while another seems more likely to stay (this can make LESS qualified people get paid more than the OVER qualified) Loyalty to the firm Experience Being in two different firms Same firm, different locations Negotiations go differently for the two employees Potential for improvement Connections t…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 10:59 PM
3

The entire concept of people with the same title getting the same pay is insane to begin with.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 09:27 PM
3

I hate that the word feminist has such nasty connotations. So tell your fellow feminists to stop supporting current "feminist" legislation like the Equal Pay Act.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 08:16 PM
2

Have done, probably will do again next update.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:37 AM
1

but he's right though. what makes Eliezer's claims right are his reasons for his claims, not that he's the owner. Oh Absolutely. I thought he was saying something negative about Eliezer... crap. I might be part of a cult. Ugh time to go read LessWrong... wait. Fuck. This is hard. =P
/r/MensRights06/02/13 04:52 AM
1

...Its his website <_<
/r/MensRights06/02/13 01:07 AM
1

t is kinda a dilemma, one hand hand an actual rape victim might not be be believed for whatever the reason ...This is a dilemma present in literally every court for every crime. We have this crazy thing called "evidence" that has to be presented on most cases to (crazy thing) "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" a persons guilt.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:28 AM
1

Rational Wiki isn't that rational. At all. Replacing god with political correctness, gender, race or the environment makes you WORSE than a religious man.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:11 AM
3

The sad fact is TONS of college age liberals actually believe this sentiment.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:07 AM
3

God I fucking hate the word "feels" in this context. Ayn Rand could not have been more correct about people like this.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 12:02 AM
1

I am really not conviced that people don't just use getting drunk for plaubile deniability, to do stuff they are too afraid to do when sober. Oh people definitely do this as well. But some people can get to the point of total inebriation, lose memory and basic thinking skills, but still act like a relatively normal drunk person.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 05:18 AM
5

It just drives me nuts that they don't know how it works. If you get drunk, you might do things you might not do otherwise. No one seems to want to accept that fact.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 10:12 PM
22

they were actually too drunk to understand what was going on and believed it There are SO many people I've met who are absolutely convinced this never happens. They don't understand what black out drunk means, they think its either you pass out or you are cognizant. Drives me fuckin' bonkers.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 09:11 PM
2

If the public wants to treat the military as just another job, then they have to let service-members quit and negotiate their own salaries just as they would be able to in any other occupation. Once again, abso-fuckin'-lutely.
/r/MensRights29/01/13 05:12 AM
4

As a minarchist, I consider the draft literally slavery and don't see uch way around that definition. Any form of forced conscription, for any kind of work violent or otherwise, is incredibly wrong and evil.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 07:02 PM
2

Wouldn't call it a double standard. Rap exists, and I say this as a hiphop fan. G's up Ho's down is a part of rap and has been for quite some time.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:30 PM
3

Holy fuck nuggets, a rational, well spoken, logical feminist. This woman is awesome. ...Is it sexist if I'm a little turned on by her? The other ladies condescending smile is driving me nuts though.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:23 PM
1

I agree.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 02:43 AM
3

It's called "doubling down." Quite a common phenomenon.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:34 PM
7

He meant that it is ok to exclude anyone from private property for any reason, aka Freedom of Association.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 09:33 PM
1

How will they lose money by putting one girl and one boy playing with the dollhouse instead of two girls? Advertising works better with conformity. It's not like girls are going to see that and not want to buy it. It is exactly like that. Not saying this is a good thing, but yes this is the general reason for only having girls in the mag in the first place. It makes more money. That said, losing a bit of money while at least making an effort to subvert some traditional gender roles is probably w…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 11:02 PM
6

A person who gets an Amber reference!?!? Holy shiznickel, this day just keeps on rolling.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:56 PM
2

So anything that's not a democratic representational government can't try to represent anything other than the average No. Not that they can't. They simply don't have to. Okay...I'm not saying they're obligated to but it's nice that they did. Sure. Stupid, because they'll lose money, but nice. And being ignored is being excluded. Gender non-conforming children will still ask for the stuff they like, but a lot of them, especially boys who want "girly" toys, are picked on by their peers and made t…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:48 PM
5

That may be true, but I think the non-average boys and girls deserve to be represented, too. What? This is a private company putting an advertisement out, not a democratic representational government. You can accept that averages exist without excluding the people who don't fall into that average. Not being on the ad isn't be "excluded," it is being ignored by marketing because your demographic doesn't normally go for that stuff. Girls who want nerf guns will still ask for nerf guns, regardless …
/r/MensRights19/01/13 10:38 PM
1

God I hate the term "social justice."
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:22 PM
8

Except even constant bombardment of these types of ads will not change the fact that the average boy wants to shoot foam darts and the average girl wants to play house.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:20 PM
4

Men have civil rights. When a right has been created, men have had it. A) Rights are not created, they simply are. B) Tell that to black men in the South of the United States.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:15 PM
9

...A Dresden reference on a random subreddit!? Well, my day is complete now.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 09:14 PM
7

Agreed. Apologies for the hyperbole.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 09:39 PM
2

Economics. Price discrimination, when appropriate, is a good thing for both businesses and customers.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:59 PM
22

Social sciences are, to put it nicely, a fat load of steaming shit. The more abstract the social "science" the smellier the shit. Hence, the academic community for "gender studies" is just about the most anti-intellectual, anti-science section of just about any university. Take everything they say with a handful of salt.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:51 PM
14

"You're a white male. You are so privileged that your opinion is irrelevant." Blah blah blah. Nobody talks like that. This sounds exactly like a made up story would sound. Normally I'd agree, but I've had multiple girls/women in various classes make statements that were just about this. I've actually heard "You're a white guy so you can't talk about sexism seriously" more than once.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:48 PM
-4

And by people, she means female friends who are jealous of her, correct?
/r/MensRights13/01/13 08:40 AM
11

I refuse to believe that there aren't many (the majority probably) who are indeed open to frank and earnest discussions. When they stop supporting the former, I'll call the latter good people.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 08:37 AM
3

Stop advocating for sexist legislation. Entirely. Which will never happen as that legislation is the entire reason for their existence.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:14 PM
2

You see, the problem here is in the eyes of users from /r/XX and many from even r/rsex, you did rape her.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 11:12 PM
1

This should be about the rights of men, and those can exist in liberal, socialist and conservative societies equally. ...Property rights do not exist in socialist societies.
/r/MensRights13/12/12 10:55 PM
1

James Bond in real life would be an absolute pric How so? He ultimately saves the world, over and over again. I'm not talking gender politics, I just think the comparison isn't very fair. There are bad male role models, Bond is not necessarily one of them.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:00 PM
1

Granted.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 06:59 PM
2

Individuals are a product of the society in which they live Painfully wrong. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a "useless degree," Gender Studies. only a flooding of the labor market for people with credentials for specific careers. Some degrees have no corresponding careers outside of academia. See above.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:26 PM
4

Hit. Them. Back.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:03 PM
0

I bring this up for the obvious double standard - America would not stand for "See Mom Work", a show about a stay at home Mom who goes back to work - and watch her destroy the office with her complete incompetence at doing an outside the home job You see, the funny part is that a person who hasn't worked a day in their lives actually WOULD fuck up at an office, where as a person who has never done house work in their lives could quite easily do housework. Because housework is easy, requires no i…
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:02 PM
-11

Women should be able to join but they shouldn't lower the standards, This would mean women can't join. Have you ever met a woman who could easily carry a 220+lbs man on her shoulders? Yeah, neither have I. Now you need to find one who not only exists, but wants to be a firefighter. Women should not be firefighters. Period.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:59 PM
2

Because they aren't. /r/seduction
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:58 PM
0

Manipulating women through memorizing lines / routines to get girls? That's fucked. No normal person does that ...Neither does anyone here.
/r/seduction24/08/12 10:07 PM
2

If I am wrong, cool. Maybe I am the odd one. You're not quite understanding what I'm saying: You're not the odd one. You're arguing against essential attributes that the overall concept you're arguing against does not have. And you're committing the error of believing that one cannot choose one's values rationally.
/r/seduction18/08/12 04:48 AM
1

... and what about the 24/7 media and advertising campaigns that you literally can't escape? I don't think you know what the word literally means. Unless you think people don't sleep. Regardless, advertising is not brainwashing. You still have to interpret the data you receive from them and then have emotional responses based on values that you get to choose. You can't even walk outside without seeing billboards or print-ads reinforcing this view Bullshit. You TAKE them as reinforcing whatever v…
/r/seduction18/08/12 04:45 AM
1

It's not a one-sided blame game, I know guys are taught to be assertive and Prince Charming and all that, too I'm not saying men are brainwashed too. I'm saying no one is brainwashed. I just wanted to give you guys the other side of the coin, thinking maybe it would make it easier to understand women. Other side of what coin, exactly?
/r/seduction18/08/12 04:40 AM
-8

But because of Hollywood and the way women are portrayed, we grow up with a sense of comparison to that. No you CHOOSE to have a sense of comparison to that.
/r/seduction18/08/12 01:40 AM
63

The community never thought negging, the way this girl is using the word, works on normal girls. Back handed insults were meant for girls who are so perfect they can't help but to know how fucking hot they are.
/r/seduction18/08/12 01:39 AM
1

what girls are taught from birth in our society. We will never be pretty enough. We will never be skinny enough, or have long enough eyelashes. Our tits are too small, too oddly shaped, or sag too much. We are what is left over after all the supermodels and movie stars are taken. Seriously. No, this is what you choose to think. No one teaches you this. If you believe it, it is your own fault. Stop deflecting the blame to "society." We spend countless hours in preK through high school telling kid…
/r/seduction18/08/12 01:25 AM
3

Oh god, I fucking burst out laughing at this. As a Jew (ethnically anyways) I commend your comedy efforts!
/r/MensRights06/08/12 06:37 PM
1

Please don't link to Jezebel. That makes their writers money. Copypasta please.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 11:50 PM
5

Because we aren't racist pedophiles.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 11:47 PM
1

He's also a cartoon. If I told you to be virtuous and hard working like batman would you respond by telling me he us an insane vigilante?
/r/seduction13/07/12 11:07 PM
2

Can we who haven't seen the movie get a link or explanation of the horror?
/r/seduction13/07/12 11:05 PM
9

Well that's the most "damned if you do, damned if you don't" statement I've ever heard. Welcome to US politics, where you get to choose between a religious collectivist and a social collectivist.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 10:02 PM
6

I know, and that's partly what makes it so horrendous. Would you mind telling that to 2xx?
/r/MensRights06/05/12 11:43 PM
20

Viperz is a known troll. Ignore him.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 01:03 AM
1

This was a joke. She explains it multiple times =/ Yes, it would be rape if it happened. But it didn't happen. <_<
/r/MensRights16/03/12 06:18 AM
11

Oh yay, another person who likes to strawman "negging." I thought he'd be better than this.
/r/seduction10/03/12 09:02 AM
3

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Distribute them as you see fit. I have plenty of extras. Costco is awesome.
/r/seduction08/03/12 07:00 PM
1

It's cynical to think that the only reason they want your friendship is to validate themselves. I didn't mean to imply this at all. Sorry for the sarcasm.
/r/seduction08/03/12 06:56 PM
1

I think it's sad that you don't feel like being yourself is a good thing and that putting on a mask is the best way to get women. Because that's what I said? Can you define, exactly, just what in the hell "be yourself" means? Because most people who get that advice interpret it to mean "you never have to change because people will love exactly who you are right now." Which is insane. You can be the same person while making different choices and changes to your personality and lifestyle. I'm not …
/r/seduction08/03/12 06:55 PM
2

. It's wrong because it's variable? It's implication that you have to know someone for a long time is wrong. Also, knowing someone well isn't based on attraction to that person In the context of your sentence for the vast majority of women it most certainly is. Not that they'd admit it. Hope ---> Higher Confidence ----> More attractive? Nope. Hope does not lead to confidence, the opposite actually. Results and building one's self up internally and externally (going to the gym, reading, learning,…
/r/seduction08/03/12 02:17 AM
3

I didn't "just give in"; I actually found myself more attracted to him the more I got to know him. Again, you are the EXCEPTION, not the rule. I guess I am kind of an exception because I'm more attracted to personalities (intelligence is a big factor for me) rather than appearance You and most women. This changes nothing at all. I realized how smart he was and what a great person he was ... I didn't "just give in" These two sentences are rather contradictory, because the above is EXACTLY what mo…
/r/seduction08/03/12 01:57 AM
20

I think some of the best relationships develop out of friendships first. Ever see the movie "He's just not that into you"? You're doing the same thing as the reassuring stupid women who tell their girlfriends that guys who treat them like shit actually love them but are afraid to commit, or some other such bullshit. You're just perpetuating that idea that if you hang around long enough, women will just give in. It almost always doesn't work that way. The exceptions are just that, exceptions. Mos…
/r/seduction08/03/12 01:28 AM
4

It's because nice guys don't go for what they want Nope. They do this all the time. It's because they don't know how to build attraction effectively because they actually listen to shitty advice like "just be yourself" and "be nice and smile" and "ask questions about them, appear interested in who they are as a person instead of a sexual
/r/seduction08/03/12 01:26 AM
7

The Asshole is like the prim and proper girl who doesn’t sleep with anyone. Love is in there somewhere, but they just seem to NEVER want to give it up. This is who we want. No. It really, really isn't. I, personally, hate those girls.
/r/seduction08/03/12 01:24 AM
1

and who says he's doing it to get laid? Hence, "if."
/r/seduction26/02/12 11:07 PM
2

The issue with this is that you are assuming that the only value the female friend has is her sexuality No I'm not. I'm assuming that most of her value to HIM is linked too closely to her sexuality to make friendship desirable. Can you honestly say that you tune out everything but one aspect of women? No, and that's exactly my point. Some guys don't befriend and try to fuck the same kinds of people. If he was originally trying to fuck her it is entirely possible he does not wish to be her friend…
/r/seduction26/02/12 11:07 PM
3

If you do it because your trying to get laid after trying and failing already with this friend? Yes.
/r/seduction26/02/12 04:15 AM
2

With what?
/r/seduction23/02/12 04:30 AM
4

The cognitive dissonance in that thread is immense.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 07:10 AM
1

It's a social science. So no.
/r/seduction01/02/12 07:44 PM
1

He got Bender out of his depression by proving to him that he doesn't do squat. Which is, ironically, doing something. Super clever. The last scene always gives me chills.
/r/seduction27/01/12 02:13 AM
10

Godfellas. Bender naps in the torpedo tube of the Planet Express ship, gets launched, and has a civilization grow on his stomach/ass who thinks he is God. Eventually, he meets the real God, who is actually a giant space computer that speaks in binary. Stuff happens and hilarity ensues. Then, serious deepness. The kind of deepness television shows, let alone cartoons, rarely touch. The God Bender interacts with is by far my favorite idea for a sentient higher-being/creator.
/r/seduction26/01/12 11:47 PM
26

Best episode of any Matt Groening show, which is saying a lot.
/r/seduction26/01/12 08:39 PM
4

Stop talking to them. They have already chosen irrationality like so many others...
/r/MensRights24/01/12 08:08 PM
2

Bye.
/r/seduction12/01/12 09:07 PM
1

but I always figured most of the complainers are either in love with a friend who just isn't interested in them that way, or were rejected by someone they liked, but settled for being friends. None of these things are mutually exclusive with my previous scenarios. But the huge, fuck-the-friendzone rants that are often attributed to nerds with too-high-standards are almost always provoked by the behavior I stated above, usually along with the girl dating a string of asshats that she constantly co…
/r/seduction11/01/12 01:58 AM
2

Hence no friendzone, just friends.
/r/seduction10/01/12 08:46 PM
2

I don't lead them on You aren't friendzoning them. The friendzone, by definition, includes some form of leading on, IE: "You'd make, like, the perfect boyfriend." "You're so amazing! How are you still single?" "I love you so much!" "My SO is such a jackass, I wish s/he was more like you!" Etc... People who complain about the friendzone are NOT complaining that the girl they like doesn't like them. They're complaining that she TELLS him shes like him in all but those words, and then proceeds not …
/r/seduction10/01/12 07:56 PM
1

I see, interesting. I have met very few people who both dislike her writing but like her ideas. I do suppose she has a very long winded style. I'm reading Shrugged now, having read Fountainhead and Anthem already, and my only complaint is how she goes from flashback to flashback to present tense without a very noticeable transition. I sometimes have to reread whole passages looking for where it suddenly became the present again.
/r/seduction31/12/11 09:04 PM
-1

No.
/r/seduction31/12/11 08:35 PM
1

but in my heart of hearts I despise Ayn Rand... Why is that exactly? Have you read any of her work?
/r/seduction31/12/11 07:55 PM
1

...would you mind checking out /r/objectivism?
/r/seduction30/12/11 04:21 AM
1

This makes me think that Howard Roark would have been awesome at seduction should he have wanted to.
/r/seduction30/12/11 04:19 AM
8

One would say exceptions prove the rule, would one not? The fact is, girls generally don't get friend zoned. They can complain all they want that it CAN happen to them, but that doesn't mean it DOES with any kind of regularity. They get sex-zoned far more often.
/r/seduction26/12/11 11:17 PM
4

Also interesting is how all the guys on that show get friendzoned but when the girls ask the guys out they're always up for it. If by interesting you mean a blatantly obvious fact that only self-righteous girls will deny, than yeah. Super interesting.
/r/seduction26/12/11 10:53 PM
33

This is what /r/XX thinks seduction is -_-
/r/seduction15/12/11 09:09 PM
1

You can stop working, and stop paying taxes. You generally can't stop whoring if you're trapped by a pimp. Ah. Very true. Serfdom is the difference!
/r/MensRights13/12/11 11:27 PM
1

I dunno man, those badges are pretty flashy.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:44 AM
1

A lot of pimps keep the women in nigh-slavery, because they "give" them outfits and stuff that the woman has to pay back with interest, which comes out of their pay, but is never fully paid off, so they're trapped under threat of physical violence. Er... That sounds exactly like the IRS. You've literally described how taxation works. I'm not defending pimping, I'm saying fuck most federal taxes, to be clear.
/r/MensRights13/12/11 03:43 AM
-2

Question: In what way is what the pimp does different from what the IRS does?
/r/MensRights12/12/11 06:24 AM
5

... the stupid is immense. The quotes by rapists aren't a problem at all. It's the RAPING that was the problem. Associating them is false and straight up retarded.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 07:34 PM
1

They think that because girls do do that.
/r/seduction28/11/11 11:29 PM
1

Are you saying a black person is the same as a Klan member? No. You've missed the point entirely. The point is, you are picking a choosing which association you will force based on the THOUGHTS of the person doing the associating. There would be a very good reason for a black person to kick a member of the KKK(A terrorist organization) out of their place of business. Exactly. A good reason. So you are punishing or approving of a reason, which is a thought. Hence, thoughtcrime. You're making a co…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 08:58 AM
1

And by the way? Black people are born black. It is not a group you join by choice. Being a KKK member is a choice. One does not need to be tolerant of intolerance. All of this is irrelevant. I do not think it is ok to use violence to force someone to associate with someone else whom they'd rather not. Period. The reasons for them not wanting to associate is entirely irrelevant to that belief. There is no need to convince me that discriminating in such a way is wrong. I know it is wrong. I just h…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 08:56 AM
3

Think about it this way. Would you object if a black business owner refused to serve a KKK member in full garb minus the hood? Probably not. Because a person should have the right to associate with whoever he wishes. You don't object to a person discriminating. You object to a person discriminating in a way that you (and I) find deplorable. To make that illegal is the make the REASON for the banishment illegal. For instance, it is not illegal to ban people for wearing a style of clothing. in bot…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 05:21 AM
1

If you believe otherwise you're a bad person. I don't think I'm a bad person. I just don't believe in using violence to force someone to associate with someone with whom they'd rather not. The reasons for that "rather not" are irrelevant to that principal.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:32 AM
4

Why? I don't think thought-crime deserve violence. I certainly would try not to patronize a racist organization, and I wouldn't be racist myself. But I'm not about to tell anyone who they can or cannot, or in this case must or must not, associate with. Period. And I stand by that principal.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:29 AM
2

There a private establishment, and if they feel like having a women-only floor will increase business by attracting a certain type of customer who appreciates that kind of situation, they have, in my book, every right to do so. I believe it was wrong to make this illegal.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:17 AM
2

You didn't. People should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they wish for whatever reasons, good or horrible, they wish.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 11:00 PM
7

Personal choice is discriminatory BY DEFINITION. And that's OK.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 10:59 PM
5

I agree 100%. As a libertarian I'm all for allowing racists to be racist.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 10:59 PM
2

"and justifying any focus on women in gender studies by claiming other academic disciplines focus on men " ...How does math focus on men? Economics? Biology? Chemistry? History? Art? How do any of these focus on men's issues? These people we're arguing against are plainly not rational =/
/r/MensRights16/11/11 09:51 PM
2

...The fuck? Not defamation? Not anything to do with hurting the FATHER??
/r/MensRights16/11/11 09:39 PM
1

Que /r/politics plugging their ears...
/r/MensRights16/11/11 09:37 PM
1

...and? That was my point. :)
/r/MensRights12/11/11 03:11 PM
5

Or the poor. Or families. Or women.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 07:15 PM
1

My claim was secondary to my argument. I'll retract it if you want. It doesn't really matter as it isn't key to the moral facts anyway.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 06:42 PM
2

And the only way to prove that it is child pornography is to.... watch it? You don't understand. It's only bad when people who AREN'T the government do it. When the government does it, it's justice! Same with stealing, threats of violence, printing money, etc etc...
/r/MensRights11/11/11 06:41 PM
2

Of course. I'm even for making buying or commissioning such material illegal. But not viewing or owning. I would certainly disapprove heavily. I just wouldn't put those people into prison.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 05:58 AM
1

Nope. It wasn't anything big, just my first name last initial and a school iattended. Anyone could figure out who I am with enough googling, and I stand by what I said. I would defend a persons right to view the most horrible media imaginable.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 03:26 AM
4

So if someone torrents it or P2Ps it, it's fine to have? Fine? No, not at all. it is still horrible. But I wouldn't advocate the use of violence against that person. Yes. And people who view, download, purchase, distribute, or create child porn are sick fucks, every last one of them. Depends on your definition of child, but I mostly agree. So? I'm sorry, but your contention that "if there's hair on the field, what's the prob?" is really disturbing No, it isn't. You're denying nature. I'm not say…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:18 PM
2

Define children before people get angry please. If you mean <18, go fuck yourself. If you mean Pre-pubescent, your statement is FAR more understandable.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:04 PM
4

but child pornography is made because of supply and demand. I disagree. It is made by sick fucks because they are sick fucks. I don't think most child porn is for-profit.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:02 PM
7

You think kiddie porn is a thought crime? The possession of? Yes. Possession is not creating a demand; BUYING is creating a demand. And regardless, sick fucks will be sick fucks regardless of whether or not other people want to watch. We are not talking about distribution or creation or purchase. Also consider that a majority of "kiddy porn" are pictures of sexually mature females taken by said females for boyfriends that got leaked on the internet or via text, where the female happens to be und…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:01 PM
4

Its a group that is essentially so hated that anyone who stands up for them is assumed to be sympathetic or standing up for their own self interests rather that merely standing up for what is right and what is wrong. Ah Fuckin' men to that. I got reamed the fuck out a few weeks ago for defending a person's right to view whatever they wish. The guy or gal arguing against me went through my entire post history, googled my user name, and posted my personal information in his/her next post in an att…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:59 PM
7

Association fallacy.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:09 PM
5

“Men have always provided the marriage home, so women’s rights have been hurt,” Oh god... the hilarity... it's side-splitting!
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:07 PM
-1

It includes things like lying as moral. I disagree. Fraud deserves a violent response to correct it. Regardless, we aren't actually arguing, we're bitching about semantics. So yeah. I agree with you.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 04:05 PM
0

So, in other words, you would defend someones right to view voyeur rape- not acted out, real life stuff- even if it is for some fetish? I would defend someone jerking it to snuff videos, so long as they didn't buy or commission them, contributing to demand. Think of the most horrible thing on the planet: I would defend any mans right to view that material. Not to create it, or demand its creation, but to view it. What's ironic about that in the slightest bit? Can you at least see the irony in th…
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:42 PM
-1

We have different views of morality. I would call the guy a dick, but I would not advocate the use of violence against him. I suppose that is how I define morality. If you haven't done something worth using violence to stop, you haven't done anything immoral. In the broader sense, yes, the dude is a dick.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:40 PM
6

and I have sympathy for neither him nor her. Sure. But she should be in jail for assault and he should be free as a jay bird having done nothing morally wrong.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 02:07 AM
-2

I just said I will defend a persons right to view even the must repugnant thing on earth. I stand by that. And this hadn't hurt me at all. Which is why I an not calling for you to be bannef or punished. ...are you not technically suggesting that you should be punished or removed? You equated your actions to something you clearly think deserves some kind of consequence. Can you at least see the irony in that?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 03:50 AM
-2

Also, do you really think I'm intimidated by your ability to google search a user name? I'm asking questions and defending people's right to look at whatever the fuck they want. I am not ashamed of that. I would defend anyone's right to look at the most repugnant thing on Earth if they wanted to do so.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:15 PM
-1

f you Andrew G born July 31, 1990 going to Cornell University in the fall of 2008 as a Nutritional Sciences major are into that under aged girls posing in a sexually explicit manner then it's alright, I will judge silently, I am not, but thanks for being an internet detective. If you continued your detectiveness you'd probably know I haven't ever really posted in /r/jb or antyhing like that. I can certainly understand the attraction, but I'm into other stuff. One doesn't need to be into it to se…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:11 PM
1

The stuff we teach you not to do you're suddenly able to because you know when and where to do so whereas before guys like cYtRyx would normally get taken advantage of. Agreed. I still generally don't buy the first round. I generally, as a rule, only buy people I'm actually conversing with drinks. Using a drink to open a person up to conversation might work, but it is a damn expensive method with tons of cheaper and more effective alternatives.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:44 AM
1

I'm just responding to the fact that you said there's no way a photo could hurt somebody. Ridiculous. How would such a photo hurt me? Embarrassment is a mental state under my control. Allow me to rephrase slightly though, to exclude extortion and blackmail: Viewing a photo cannot possibly harm someone.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:42 AM
1

Ok, would you care to pull a sexy pose in a mankini while sucking a banana and then post it to /r/GW so I can show it to your mom? No. See how easy that was? If I had done so, I'd certainly have no right to stop you from looking at it out of embarrassment.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 01:01 AM
-1

It's all about context. Pictures of teens aren't generally sexualized in public, but in r/jb it is, which is what made it awful. It was the context. What? Why is that awful? You've certainly asserted that context is important but you haven't stated HOW the context makes that awful... to anyone but you. Objectively awful. Of course it is subjectively awful! But like I said, you have no right to stop someone from doing something simply because you don't like it. Pictures don't hurt people directly…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 08:14 PM
-2

Literally everything about that post is wrong. Could you be more specific? Are you of the opinion that people have a right to privacy in public? Or that looking at someone has ever hurt them in the history of mankind? Or was it the last part? Do you dispute that disliking something gives you no innate right to stop it? Or do you dispute that women are more likely than men to not understand that fact (this is the part I think is by far the most disputable, and I'd even be willing to retract it if…
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:31 PM
1

Perfect example of how we're very little like /srs/ seems to think.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:27 PM
10

Do I really want to go down the abuse alley? Why? Why not just resolve the problem and move on? Reverse genders. Imagine the response. That's why.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:25 PM
3

Sexist, generalizations all over the place, and completely supported by the voting patterns. This is the most key difference I see. One shot, incredibly sexist generalizations get upvoted to hell. While occasionally sexism does get some upvotes in /r/mr, it is usually mixed into someones otherwise valid argument/beef. One-shot assholes are usually promptly downvoted into hell.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 05:38 PM
7

I've had a good handful of girls ask me to buy them a drink. My response is always the same, "Nah, but you can buy me one! If you stick around long enough to seem cool I'll buy the next round! ;P" This prevents getting scammed by bitches and leaves you open to meeting a cool new friend!
/r/MensRights29/10/11 03:02 PM
-6

Women have been trained to think that people need permission to use/think about/publish images of themselves they put into the public eye. This is the same reason people demonized /r/jb, as if a picture of someone could possibly hurt them. Not liking something does not give you the right to stop it. Women, more than men but men certainly as well, rarely understand this.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 02:57 PM
7

PEOPLE use shaming tactics to suppress discussion. Let's not be sexist.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 02:53 PM
11

Never buy the first round. If she's interesting, buying a round is fine. NEVER, EVER, EVER buy the initial round.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 02:51 PM
41

Walk up to man you are attracted to. Say hi. Give number. Say call me. Walk away. Girls don't really need game to get dates. They need game to KEEP them.
/r/seduction11/10/11 05:37 PM
1

Also, I said nothing about draper, who is fictional.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:11 AM
1

Again, you need to read more of him.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 04:05 AM
1

It'd be like saying what would Thomas Jefferson think of Jim Crow Laws? He'd say "hey I own slaves, they don't deserve the right to vote you idiots" Read more Jefferson.
/r/MensRights09/10/11 01:38 AM
1

...I call most younger males "boy." Got me into some serious trouble a few times when the younger dude was black. <_< Bad habit to get into.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 07:49 PM
-1

Please, please, please post this in XX with the genders reversed. I want to see them all jump on it telling you to call the cops ASAP, how the guy who did this will rape more if you don't put him away, etc etc etc
/r/MensRights06/10/11 07:43 PM
1

here aren't a lot of big communist nations around anymore There's a very good reason for that too. so often times nationss like france and finland are considered "socialist" They are certainly relatively socialist compared to a perfectly free market, but that doesn't mean they don't have a mostly free economy compared to the old command economy ways of communism, feudalism, and imperial mercantilism.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 02:23 AM
2

It assumes that every male is a potential rapist. Which is absurd.
/r/MensRights05/10/11 02:20 AM
1

France, Finland, the UK, etc... versus the U.S. Which would you rather be a homeless drug addict in? All of those countries are FAR more capitalist than anything else. You can say a lot for the U.S. but it is one of the most purely capitalistic first world nations LMFAO. No. No it is not. Hong Kong, maybe, US? Hell no. and it treats its poor like shit compared to other countries. It's poor are better off than the poor in most of the rest of the world. Just like every other capitalist nation. I'm…
/r/MensRights05/10/11 02:00 AM
2

Saying that he's never been right about anything is completely fallacious. Well duh. He's stated some facts. I still don't think his opinions on those facts have ever been "good," whatever that means.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:53 PM
1

Not really no. Any system close to either communism or socialism has been relative hell for its lower class.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:42 PM
2

...I agree. Which is why I originally refused to identify myself on that scale. If anything, I am a minarchist. Which is very, very hard to place on the left-right scale without making people think I stand for a whole bunch of bullshit I don't stand for.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:04 PM
3

forgot the title, but the medical one was a great example The medical one was his seconed worst. They got more and more terrible as they went on. Bowling for Columbine was a good movie. His 9/11 movie was just awful. Same with Capitalism, a Love Story, which could have been titled "You keep using that word..." However he has a serious issue with pulling facts from his ass and giving an extremely biased opinion in the middle of what would otherwise be great documentaries. I agree. And I think tha…
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:03 PM
2

I'm not doubting it. I'm not curious as to how women as a whole would react (because I don't think groups of people ever have uniform opinions), I'm curious as to what comments in XX would get upvoted. in other words, I'm curious about the reactions of XX redditors, not women in general.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 09:00 PM
1

The American form of capitalism (which since FDR can be called corporatism) has STILL been better for the lower class than any form of non-capitalism. My point stands.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 06:07 PM
6

A gradient scale of WHAT exactly? Explain it to me the way YOU see it. Because most people have crazy specific definitions of left and right that contradict each-other constantly. However, if you believe that totally left wing is despotism, and totally right wing is anarchy, than I suppose I am far more rightwing than left. However, people rarely use the scale that way because it doesn't let them hold contradictory beliefs, like thinking you're for freedom and socialism at the same time.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:55 PM
3

'isnt it ironic, that those most downtrodden by the system are the first to rise and defend it?' That isn't a good statement. it assumes it is the capitalist system that makes those people poor, which is absurd, seeing as the lower classes in other systems have been FAR worse off.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:52 PM
9

...What a lovely false dichotomy you've made for me. Now... which of the two sides I don't agree with should I choose... hmmm....
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:50 PM
0

Someone wanna cross this to XX? I'd love to see how this goes over there.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:26 PM
–

Moore has had some good statements in the past ...which?
/r/MensRights04/10/11 05:12 PM
2

Why is a man banging a sexually mature underage girl consentually wrong?
/r/MensRights03/10/11 11:42 PM
2

And obviously men had a ridiculous advantage before women's suffrage Not really. Being able to vote doesn't give you that much power at all. And since women's suffrage was granted, results haven't changed. At all. Seriously. Statistically there is ZERO difference in political choices when men only vote or when men and women vote. They split the same way.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 05:26 PM
9

I don't know any 14 year old girls who could pass for adults, Really? Really really? I think you aren't looking very hard. I know PLENTY of 14 year old girls who could pass for 21. And I know PLENTY of 21 year old girls who could pass for 14, which makes things even HARDER.
/r/MensRights03/10/11 02:10 AM
2

That... seems very, very incorrect. Soldiers are predominantly male.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 05:12 AM
–

Men don't rape. Psychopaths rape. And you're not going to convince them not to by telling them it's wrong. Very, very, very few people in America actually believe rape is OK. The people who rape are not in the majority. This idea that every man is a potential rapist, so we must teach men not to rape, is absurd in modern culture.
/r/MensRights23/09/11 05:07 AM
-1

have met some jewish people who display these exact characteristics: they see themselves as perpetually oppressed, yet have no problem making everybody else feel that they are somehow better. T As a Jew with a big jewish family, FUCK YES. OMG YES. So true.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 05:53 PM
6

Funny comic, no relation to the title. Confused.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 05:44 PM
7

Men earn only one in five of all master’s degrees awarded in psychology, down from half in the 1970s. Sexism... right?
/r/MensRights30/08/11 12:11 AM
1

Or at least promise to get some really awesome donor sperm.... For mankind and all that
/r/seduction24/08/11 08:08 PM
6

Meh. Non issue.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 08:47 PM
1

I'm tired of people telling me I can't be a good men's right's advocate because I'm a conservative!
/r/MensRights22/08/11 11:30 PM
0

It is, but it also works with mainly certain types of females - insecure ones. ...You realize the term neg was originally used to describe a technique that is meant only for 10's (highly ranked social value wise) right?
/r/seduction12/08/11 05:15 AM
5

How is this creepy
/r/seduction26/07/11 08:21 PM
2

Fucking claps for you sir.
/r/seduction24/07/11 05:08 AM
8

Condoms in the glove compartment. Never forget.
/r/seduction16/07/11 08:52 PM
0

moral relativism. Ew... Utilitarianism Double ew. We agree to disagree sir.
/r/seduction14/07/11 06:18 PM
9

That absolves you, they were both legitimate targets. You're one of those people who somehow managed to fail ethics in college aren't you?
/r/seduction14/07/11 07:30 AM
-1

I'm not mad. And there's nothing to get over. I just don't like it when people imply that it is as easy as "just starting a conversation and being confident," because vague bullshit advice like that is only really applicable to naturals.
/r/seduction12/06/11 04:56 PM
4

people are usually decently social. Generally not with unattractive people. Psychology pretty much confirms this. Plain lady struggling with bags = ignored. Pretty lady struggles with bags = more than a dozen people stop to help.
/r/seduction10/06/11 08:09 PM
3

...If you weren't good looking the she wouldn't have said the hanger line. Thanks for telling us all you're a natural. It really helps. -_-
/r/seduction10/06/11 04:22 PM
3

Hah. Try being in your situation and NOT being physically attractive. You're already half-way up the ladder bub. Focus on that at least.
/r/seduction29/05/11 02:23 AM
2

Depends very heavily on how you view "better". And "man" for that matter.
/r/seduction18/05/11 07:30 PM
1

I don't ignore a large part of my life, nor would I consider raiding a large part of my life. I spend a large portion of my life eating, sleeping and shitting but it doesn't really make for great dinner conversation. So what exactly would I talk about? I don't really do anything else. Just smoke weed and play video games, listen to music, watch movies, etc... I can't really think of who the fuck I am if I remove my interests =/ That is fucking sad.You are not your games. You are not your compute…
/r/seduction12/05/11 04:57 PM
1

Brag? I wouldn't say that. I mention it. I would say I only spend 10 seconds about it, more if they want details. I mention it from "I'm a huge nerd, I don't know if you could handle me" cocky frame. I get 80% of the time a verbal IOI "Well I like nerds" / "Nerds turn me on", others just say that is cool and move on. So you effectively ignore a large part of your life when talking to them, only mentioning it in passing? The hell happens when they realize you actually raid on the weekends in stea…
/r/seduction11/05/11 11:04 PM
1

So you actively brag about playing World of Warcraft and it gets you laid? Sorry if I'm incredibly skeptical. Either you're already hot (which means what you say doesn't really matter much), you're lying, or you've got something figured out and can you please teach me it?
/r/seduction11/05/11 10:09 PM
1

Alpha is saying "I was going to level my shaman tonight, but yeah I'll take you home instead" instead of making up something about work. Show me a girl who won't be insanely turned off by this and I'll show you a rare fuckin' girl.
/r/seduction11/05/11 08:53 PM
0

(women are stupid and disposable, dating is a game like risk that can be won, having sex is the ultimate goal) I lvoe how people pull things out of their asses, and it's so clear that they just want to go on a rant to raise their own value inside their own heads.
/r/seduction06/05/11 04:00 AM
1

...How does this not confirm the idea that women are indeed chasing the same ten men over and over again while ignoring the other 90?
/r/seduction26/04/11 05:13 AM
1

They don't like you, but they don't want to look like a bitch, nor do they want any potential drama from calling you out in person. And that makes them a bitch. Seriously.
/r/seduction26/04/11 05:11 AM
1

but if there is no attraction then I'll make it clear and let her down easy. In my entire (granted short) life, I have NEVER met a woman who let's a man who'[s attracted to her down, let alone easily.
/r/seduction24/04/11 06:38 PM
2

Haven't you ever heard the saying "All's fair in love and war"? Yes, from the asshole character in movies who's about to go way to far and do something awful. You realize most of the time people say that IRONICALLY?!? You can't blow up a village and justify it with "all is fair." And you can't help a woman cheat and use the same logic to defend yourself. The man ignores the feelings of the other man in this instance, because his own and the woman's supersede the boyfriend's. So basically, what y…
/r/seduction20/04/11 08:50 AM
3

No but every woman I talk to I don't want to sleep with. But you do want to sleep with some of them. Do you tell them right off the bat?
/r/seduction20/04/11 05:25 AM
1

The nice guys get angry, lash out and often take vengeance on the unsuspecting women. What the hell is this supposed to imply if not assault or rape? Do you not understand the connotation of "lash out," "take vengeance," or "unsuspecting women?"
/r/seduction20/04/11 05:24 AM
2

Not his boyfriend, not his problem. You see, this sounds like something a douchebag would say. A douchebag being someone that ignores empathy.
/r/seduction20/04/11 05:12 AM
3

...You sound like a douche bag. Offense totally meant. You slept with a woman you you knew had a boyfriend. The woman sounds like a bitch as well.
/r/seduction19/04/11 09:31 PM
3

...So ignoring grammar and punctuation makes me sexier? Really?
/r/seduction19/04/11 09:25 PM
31

...How is this sick exactly? I mean she's a bit of a nutter, what with the beard thing, but still...
/r/seduction19/04/11 09:24 PM
9

When you are not upfront about your intention you are manipulating someone to get an outcome.. So you walk up to every woman you want to sleep with and say "Hi, I'd really like to fuck you?" I'm doubting it. Does that make you a liar until you do tell her?
/r/seduction19/04/11 01:40 AM
6

I love people using anecdotal evidence to support a sweeping generalization. Lovely.
/r/seduction19/04/11 01:39 AM
-3

The women, often blindsided does what any normal person would do and tells him they are just friends. The nice guys get angry, lash out and often take vengeance on the unsuspecting women. lolwat? So I'm a potential rapist/abuser? Fuck you.
/r/seduction19/04/11 01:37 AM
8

Telling a guy to "be alpha", or telling a guy to "be confident" is as useless as telling a girl to "just be pretty" THANK YOU!
/r/seduction14/04/11 11:13 PM
0

Technically, everyone is always on top of the world at all times.
/r/seduction09/04/11 10:54 PM
1

And what if he is one of those nine dogs?
/r/seduction09/04/11 05:34 PM
2

There are plenty of geek-girls out there too The ratio is about 10:1 Dog to Bun though =/
/r/seduction08/04/11 10:49 PM
-6

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine a girl who is not attracted to me is suddenly going to be into me because I took her to bet on some pool games, or because I took her bowling. I just don't see that working. At all.
/r/seduction07/04/11 10:52 PM
2

...I can't think of a single thing for my list =/
/r/seduction07/04/11 10:34 PM
15

...How about being honest and explaining to her she's coming on too strong and needs to back off? Seriously, why is being honest never an option?
/r/seduction05/01/11 06:13 PM
2

Anyway, the technique I thought was the worst was negging and I thought it totally wouldn't work on me. Negging = teasing and yes it does work on you. It works on everybody. A very rare selection of girls don't like being teased by a guy they're interested in.
/r/seduction04/01/11 05:55 PM
1

I was just thinking that.
/r/seduction01/05/10 08:06 PM
9

I'd pull out my wang, start waving it about and screaming "I AM THE CHEESE MAN, BOW BEFORE MY CALCIUM!" That help?
/r/seduction11/04/10 07:27 PM
3

Usually I divert the question into some sort of joke. Then you're already doing what's best.
/r/seduction30/03/10 11:23 PM
1

That's why I said his advice was good :P
/r/seduction08/03/10 11:35 PM
7

We set a time to meet, but I flaked I got to this and closed the window. He gave decent advice, but he's a fucking douche, as only a fucking douche would schedule two dates at once and flake one. Making a person wait for you at a venue is quite possibly the douchiest thing one can do, IMO.
/r/seduction08/03/10 08:44 PM
3

...People don't think like this. PUA's don't think like this. Only sad chumps who hate on PUA's think PUA's think like this. Giving an idea a name like "qualify" doesn't make it unnatural. Some guys (particularly geeks and nerds) will do much better at something if they can surround it with a vocabulary of terms. It helps people who are book smart make sense of social interactions.
/r/seduction25/02/10 06:44 PM
12

I'm sorry, but the correct to that question was either "nothing" or "my penis," we also would have accepted any other phallic word in place of penis.
/r/seduction24/02/10 12:36 AM
2

What the fuck happened "for real"? She interpreted each situation in a negative way. Then I heard something, just barely, behind me. I went cold and >turned around, and a few feet away was an older boy -- around 16 >years old at least, definitely too old be on the playground equipment >sneaking up behind me. He was looking at me intently with what I can >only assure you was a creepy, dangerous expression. How exactly does one where a "creepy/dangerous" expression? Oh, right, by SMILING. So becau…
/r/seduction13/11/09 07:23 AM
2

You're trying to say women actually like guys who are "nice". DWolf is stating that's utter bullshit, and he knows this because we ALL know it's a fat load. Yes, it is possible to be not-nice and still not-liked. But it is basically IMPOSSIBLE to be "nice" and liked, because the "nice" guy gets nowhere. Get it now?
/r/seduction13/11/09 07:19 AM
2

pretends she doesn't hear you is a bitch. And this is where you lost me. If you pretend not to hear someone, you're a bitch. If you don't tell him to fuck off, you're a bitch. If you keep LETTING A GUY THINK HE HAS A CHANCE without shooting him down, you're a bitch. Bitches aren't the girls who turn guys down, they're the ones who lead them on. I could not care less about some chick who turns me down, but a girl who lets me think I have a chance or just plain ignores me!? That's a bitch.
/r/seduction13/11/09 07:12 AM
0

Err... you're severly misinterpreting the left-right scale. The simple left right scale, contrary to popular beliefe, is a scale of government size. Left = more government involvement in an issue Right = less government involvement in an issue So a dictatorship, by definition, is far left-wing. Anarchy, by definition, is far right-wing.
/r/MensRights11/05/09 03:35 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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