TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ludi_literarum Archive

View 1 post and 24 comments by ludi_literarum 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)
7

ludi_literarum/r/MensRights17/10/12 08:51 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
10

Yeah, that's definitely how human sexuality works.
/r/MensRights08/05/13 03:36 PM
6

Except that sort of Feminism has much more political clout than Fred Phelps. If they really were like WBC this community could end and we could all go post something amusing in /r/gifs or something.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:17 AM
2

I really wish people would understand the ways in which "The US" as a whole does things. This refers to the FBI definition of rape for statistical purposes and has no force of law. Under federal law there is no crime called rape, all serious involuntary sexual contact is called sexual assault. Each state deals with rape differently as well, with some not having a crime called rape and some defining differently from others. This changed nothing about how our legal system functions, and nothing wa…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 02:16 PM
1

Right, but there are also plenty of women who have drunk the kool-aid because they see the analysis of feminism as the only genuine way to contextualize their commitment to egalitarianism. They will necessarily see being too combative as misogyny, but can be persuaded by constructive engagement. That's more important because women who already see the social problems pointed out by the men's rights movement as valid aren't an important constituency for radical feminism, but it's the complicity of…
/r/MensRights10/01/13 05:29 PM
2

A couple debaters I knew used to run a case on that question with regard to the New Atheism. I think unlike that scenario, constructive engagement is more likely to work here because it could help bring committed, thoughtful women out from under the banner and structures of a movement that has completely deviated from its original end. A constructive counter-movement that didn't portray itself as the opponents of the egalitarian aims of early feminism but rather as recovers of that ideology whic…
/r/MensRights09/01/13 04:33 AM
1

I said his rights were somewhat compromised already, I didn't say they were compromised completely. There's a general social expectation that your spouse is able to speak on your behalf which is particularly enshrined in medicine in power-of-attorney laws. I'm talking about a norm, not a rule.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 03:54 PM
1

It doesn't coerce him because the surgery is elective. HIPPA only regulates what medical providers, insurers, and their surrogates can do with protected information, it doesn't create an absolute privacy right. If the coercion were ex post it would at least violate the intent of HIPPA, but they're offering conditions and making a free choice. It may suck, but it's legal. Beyond that, though, if they're married she'd automatically have power of attorney over him if he were incapacitated, so his r…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:32 PM
3

There is a common-law tort called loss of consortium which is designed to compensate for deprivation of familial relationships. In practice it almost always refers to sex. There's probably some reading of the law that would make a vasectomy tortious in the context of marriage, but it would have to apply equally to something like tubal ligation to be consistent. I guess if the doctor messed it up there could be a suit if there were permanent damage, and while his malpractice insurance would cover…
/r/MensRights20/12/12 08:59 PM
2

Courts didn't rule that way based on HIPPA, they did so based on their understanding of Roe. Technically this doesn't violate HIPPA because it doesn't disclose information to the person's wife without his consent.
/r/MensRights20/12/12 08:37 PM
1

Right, but that violates the basic norms of how we understand promulgated laws in the US and is based on no facts whatsoever.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:22 PM
1

The basic norm of statutory interpretation in the anglophone legal tradition to which every jurisdiction in the US except Louisiana subscribes is that you presume the legislator intended the language of his/her/their legislation and read it accordingly. Whether they intended to make it the law or not, that's what the law is. I don't care what other countries or the Uniform Crime Reports (which, as you've now had explained to you a half-dozen times are not laws) say, the question is about the law…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:22 PM
1

See, this is the move that makes your argument incoherent - whenever it's made clear that the law says what we would want it to say from an Egalitarian perspective you move to how the law is enforced. These are obviously two completely separate issues.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 04:30 PM
1

How much more official a definition of rape do you want than the actual text of the criminal laws? The OP's picture says that a criminal conviction would be impossible in Virginia. The OP is incorrect, Virginia's rape statute encompasses any involuntary sex act. While it is the case that some jurisdictions in the United States reserve rape for penetration only, it's not as if they actually treat it as a lesser offence - the penalties for aggravated sexual assault are almost always equivalent to …
/r/MensRights11/12/12 04:26 PM
2

Do you understand the difference between law and practice? It seems you do not.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 04:14 PM
2

Absolutely, but there's a difference between blaming the law-as-promulgated for the failures of law enforcement. There are still places where intimate partner rape is not taken seriously at all, and yet we wouldn't say that intimate partner rape is legal in those places, we'd just say that the police should live up to the oaths they swore. This is the same thing.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:05 AM
1

Since when does the FBI have legislative power superior to that of Congress? The FBI makes up definitions of crimes to use in the Uniform Crime Reports, a truly awful system of reporting crimes on a national level despite variance in the law from state to state. This isn't even close to the thing most wrong with that particular system, and few people take them seriously, not least because they're so messed up many jurisdictions simply don't take part. The FBI is obligated by law to enforce the s…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 07:02 AM
2

That's simply not true. Many states don't have a crime called rape at all, and many others may define rape in terms of penetration but have a charge like "aggravated sexual assault" which carries the same penalties or similar and relates to other involuntary sex acts.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 02:17 AM
1

The US has upwards of 52 sets of criminal laws. Under some of those law codes, evelopment can be part of the crime called "rape". Under some of them, it cannot. Under some, including the criminal code of the Federal Government (which only applies in certain cases, not across the whole US), there is no crime called "rape," there is sexual assault, which typically includes any involuntary sex act. "US law" is highly inconsistent on this question, and no, the Uniform Crime Reports have nothing to d…
/r/MensRights11/12/12 02:10 AM
1

I've heard the word used in a legal context in Canadian courts (I put on CPAC when I can't sleep), but it's possible they were speaking colloquially. I know Canada has pretty strict rules about what media can and can't print in rape cases, so it's not surprising that the news stories are usually short.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:23 AM
1

As I said to RealQuickPoint, I agree that it would be very difficult to implement, I just thought some people in this sub would be interested in the idea for its own sake.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:21 AM
2

Like I said, I'm a debater, so I usually think about policies rather than implementation. I don't think it's something that could be easily implemented in the US, I just thought the sub might like the idea in principle, or have thoughts about it.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 01:20 AM
1

My understanding of the UK criminal statutes is that they are written such that they always use the pronoun "he." I'm not a lawyer, but I've read other statutes that clearly aren't gender-specific which are written the same way. Not that this changes your reading substantively because it still references the use of a penis rather than objects.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 05:22 PM
0

Affirmative evidence and conclusive evidence are obviously different things. I can offer affirmative evidence of all sorts of positions or ideas which do not demand the assent of all reasonable people. Radical feminism has affirmative arguments, even if none of them are persuasive. In the same way, any particular articulation of evolutionary biology has sufficient gaps in the evidence that it is open to later revision, which makes sense given that it is routinely revised. Standards of evidence i…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 03:09 AM
1

That's just not true - balance of probabilities still requires affirmative evidence in order to demonstrate any probability that, for instance, the crime happened. I don't for a second believe that balance of probabilities is a proper standard for criminal conviction, but lower standards are rationally justifiable from a purely fact-finding standpoint. Indeed, the scientific examples you cite cut against your premise - evolution is thought to be true based on a balance of probabilities. There is…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 12:39 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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