TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

lyraseven Archive

View 0 posts and 152 comments by lyraseven on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

But we've observed that without regulation, competition leads to anti-competition if they get too big. False. We've rarely observed absence of regulation to begin with. Modern nations are so regulated that even entry into markets at all is fraught with obstacles or outright brick walls, such as licensing, zoning or even outright protectionism. Where we do see deregulated markets we see competition every single time. Internet movie piracy, for example, is a deeply competitive 'industry'. As for c…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/17 11:01 PM
1

On the scale of what benefits society as a whole, wealth inequality is a problem No it's not. First, what benefits society as a whole is competition, and envy of status is a driver. Not just of the less successful; everyone. You need some incentive for performing better, and your right to keep what you earn but not take what others earn is one part of this. I'm neither greedy nor altruistic. I just don't want to be coerced to fulfill others' wishes.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/17 08:20 PM
1

Did you not know that social welfare programs are paid for by everyone, not just "The State?" BUT THIS WAS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN LESS TAX OR MORE TAX. Tax the hoarders their fair share. Their 'fair share' is zero. They owe you nothing. Second fairest is taxing everyone the same flat percentage. Nowhere in any concept of fairness is taxing the successful more fair. Wealth inequality IS the reason for this. Wealth inequality is a meme and a good thing. That the existence of better-off people makes …
/r/PussyPassDenied18/12/17 07:21 AM
1

Everyone cares about influencing law. What the successful do not care about is what age the State starts paying you a pension, from the State's budget.
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/17 11:39 AM
1

Like, this is just rich fucks playing us against each other. Fucking hell, the ressentiment is sad. No, Patrick, the successful aren't conspiring against you. That's crack addled Marxist class paranoia. Muh rich don't fucking care what state pension age is. There are still anti-discrimination laws that fuck them over if someone of state pension age decides to work anyway. This only benefits, you guessed it, the state. If you had read the article, you'd have known that. “The pension would be paid…
/r/PussyPassDenied17/12/17 08:04 AM
1

/r/MenKampf
/r/MensRights18/10/17 11:32 AM
–

A milisecond unjustly imprisoned is an eternity, as is a ruined life with three years of opportunities seized away. These cunts should get the full Saudi Arabia treatment.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/07/17 07:33 PM
5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2cXQbPMHvE
/r/MensRights06/07/17 05:52 PM
0

At least you're allowed in at all though.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 08:55 PM
–

He also said other stuff, which needed a response. He insinuated that the practice is not barbaric, so I explained why it is.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:54 PM
12

I think that sort of quick demonstration of the hypocrisy of pro-baby-mutilation people is very useful in encouraging people to seek out the more in-depth arguments about the practice. Memes have always served that purpose. It's also useful to have low-effort things like this with which to ridicule pro-baby-mutilation people. They should be treated as unworthy of debate, and spammed with low energy memes. Their opinion is an obsolete one and should not be treated with the weight actual moral dil…
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:46 PM
–

What the fuck is not barbaric about it? How the hell does the context not make the situation worse?! Context: It's the most sensitive skin on his body. It is an extremely important part of a male's sexual mechanics. it's being amputated for no reason. IT IS A BABY.
/r/MensRights22/03/17 05:19 PM
10

Schroedinger's baby.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 01:38 AM
6

The kind of person who would name their child after Samwise Gamgee is exactly the kind of unthinking prole who would have their child mutilated arbitrarily out of tradition or benevolent ignorance.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 12:09 AM
1

Sure.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 10:33 PM
1

Morality is subjective; its definition changes constantly depending the person or the culture. To an extent some things do. Mutilating children without a pressing need is always evil and anyone who thinks otherwise is always incorrect. Since there aren't arguments to the contrary I didn't bother reading any further.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 07:20 PM
1

Yup, I did say that approximately a day ago. Well observed. Morality hasn't changed its definition since then though.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 05:05 PM
1

Not relevant.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 04:42 PM
2

Not relevant.
/r/MensRights07/02/17 03:27 AM
7

You're utilizing an appeal to emotion Except I'm actually simply using words in their most literal meanings for accuracy's sake. I'm not editorializing or invoking long drawn out descriptions of how much circumcision hurts baby boys, though I could have been. horrific holding babies down amputees evil brutality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLhEoOQhsVw If you're employing such polarizing terminology to describe this practice, then what, pray tell, is left to say about beheadings? Burning peopl…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 07:09 PM
1

For future reference 'not indicated', medically, would mean a procedure is unnecessary. So mutilation isn't indicated just because a young man has a very sensitive glans. They get over it, just like my partner did.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 06:23 PM
9

while arguing in favor of other counterfeit terminology. 'Amputation of the foreskin' is actual medical terminology, as well as accurate by simple definitions. And let's put another word from your post under the microscope: brutality. Is this objectively accurate as well? Are victims of police brutality, domestic violence, or ISIS beheadings all on the same plane of suffering as circumcised babies? Do you not understand how the language you're using simply weakens your argument? "Holding babies …
/r/MensRights06/02/17 06:07 PM
5

'Amputee' is not a pejorative. It is not a term used to shame. It is a word that objectively applies in this context. I'm an amputee myself, technically, as a trans woman. The only correct pejorative use of 'amputee' in this context refers to the people who make children into amputees. We do not hate or shame or blame victims.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 05:37 PM
9

Actually, you are still providing the straw man. Pointing out that someone who was made an amputee as a child has been robbed isn't shaming, it's just pointing out a fact. We feel sorry for victims of unnecessary amputation, not contempt. The contempt isn't for your penis, the contempt is for your determination to positively affirm your amputation by perpetuating it on other little boys.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 05:35 PM
6

I frankly don't care if anyone is offended. It's a perfectly cromulent word in this context. Cut men are amputees. That is an objectively accurate word even in cases where the amputation was voluntary in adulthood.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 05:27 PM
1

Huh? That was precisely what I was saying. I think you've gotten wires crossed from all the trolls today. I was the one who originally said it was an experience thing, remember? It's common to young men who weren't mutilated, but it's gotten over by having sex more. It's not an actual problem, it's a relatively common part of growing up. Mutilation is not indicated.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 05:26 PM
7

Not really. This is fun for me. Or it is above a certain level of effort on the troll's part; you're getting too low-energy to bother with. Bye. Appease* btw.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 05:25 PM
6

Oh jeebus. "unmolested". http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/unmolested How do you people read about history without fainting over the practices of old days. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html There are people today born without eyes in countries where they will most likely die at a young age. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html And people on the Internet are upset at a piece of skin not being on their dicks. http://www.nizkor.o…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:59 PM
10

Holding babies down and making them amputees for no reason is brutality.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:49 PM
5

Leaving children unmolested so they can make their own choices when they're competent too is the opposite of short sighted. Mutilating children on the basis that they might not mind is short sighted.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:48 PM
8

I'm a transsexual woman, and wasn't mutilated as a child. I have no personal stake or bias in this beyond that which I have in my desire to prevent wrongs being done to anyone. I am observing that mutilating children is evil, and that condemning the people who do it is a different thing than shaming the victims of it. There's nothing 'angsty' about it, much less immature. It's not sensationalizing, it's observing that child mutilation is wrong. Also, amputees don't 'argue' back here. 'I don't mi…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:41 PM
0

Anecdotally and incidentally, my partner couldn't tolerate blowjobs for long when we met - and I don't mean he came quickly, I mean it was so sensitive they hurt. He'd pull back completely involuntarily when it got so 'good' it hurt. I couldn't cite any specific studies because the physical aspects of sex aren't a specialty of mine, but that it happens is very well known. If you google it, in between the fucking billions of articles talking about whether or not mutilating children affects the re…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:35 PM
16

Nope, just capable of recognizing senseless brutality when I see it, and equally disinterested in any defense of any of it.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:17 PM
–

No one is shaming anyone for what their penis is like. We're shaming people for what they allow to be done to penises which aren't theirs.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 03:52 PM
0

The fuck are you talking about? That's a you problem. An issue specifically you had. It's common to young men who weren't mutilated, but it's gotten over by having sex more. It's not an actual problem, it's a relatively common part of growing up. Mutilation is not indicated.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 03:50 PM
29

If you think a minor surgical procedure is horrific, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the Holocaust. The English language only has so many adjectives, you know. Also horrific. There's a level of evil beyond which there's really no point inventing specific adjectives. Mutilating babies' genitalia is up there.
/r/MensRights06/02/17 03:46 PM
1

Unlawfully blocking people with violence and intimidation from lawful access to a place they have a right to be has to be something you can shoot over, right? Or the other way around; surely the workplaces being blocked have the right to remove people blocking their property?
/r/PussyPassDenied24/01/17 08:37 AM
3

Basically your argument is premised on juvenile does not exist and all citizens should be provided full adulthood rights from birth. I said nothing about citizens. I said all humans. Absolutely all humans have the right to not be made amputees, and amputated of an important body part too, because their parents are safe gamblers. Child's body, child's choice to make. In the absence of near-certainty that the child would choose the same way - in emergency life-saving need - 'doctors' should keep t…
/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:39 PM
3

Maybe you'll die if you don't read your horoscope every morning. Shrug.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 08:35 PM
2

That's not an apples to apples comparison. Not only for the reasons you mentioned (which I actually disagree with, as a libertarian) but because when vaccinations go smoothly - almost all of the time - they are nothing but brief internal biological processes which leave no permanent effects. Circumcision, even when it goes smoothly, still makes permanent amputees out of boys.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 09:26 AM
2

Your being alright with it is irrelevant. You're one child. The other dozen million or so get their choice too, once they're old enough.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 09:24 AM
–

Let's not forget that even if it prevented cancer, it'd be for the child to give informed consent as an adult. Whether or not there are medical benefits is a distraction.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 11:13 PM
–

No. Equivalent doesn't go far enough. In addition to trying to condemn the victim to a fate worse than death for many, and succeeding in ruining their lives even if legal punishment is avoided, it uses all the trappings of the 'justice' system as a weapon. If someone plants a bomb but it's badly designed and doesn't go off, she shouldn't get a slap on the wrist just because circumstances prevented the worst from happening. She tried to make the worst happen, making accomplices of all of society …
/r/PussyPassDenied19/01/17 02:09 PM
6

Loved this show. Loved this scene too. Everyone does have a finite amount of time, and too many people these days don't see how their entitlement requires others to sacrifice of it.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/01/17 11:10 AM
44

No, this is absolutely sexist regardless of the reasoning behind it. Women can choose the comfort of shitting with only other women, while mens' feelings don't matter? Fuck off.
/r/MensRights20/11/16 05:55 PM
19

Except that's not the case at all, because when you see someone offering false emotional connection for personal gain, calling that person a whore is nothing to do with feelings, but the literal definition of the word playing out.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/11/16 10:30 AM
–

No, but a whore is a whore even when she's only soliciting.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/11/16 07:58 AM
1

I can't but think that person is rather ignorant. Ignorance means lack of understanding or awareness. No one isn't aware that SJW retards get triggered by the word retard, and no one doesn't understand why they do. It's just that we don't give the slightest fuck. Disagreement != ignorance.
/r/PussyPassDenied31/10/16 07:41 PM
1

More like based on my experience with dating men based on their personalities instead of looks.
/r/MensRights12/09/16 04:46 AM
2

Meh, even the most perfect man alive might not necessarily find someone suitable quickly. Doesn't change that he's still a catch regardless of what shallow assholes think.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 05:42 PM
2

Fucking pathetic.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 05:36 PM
2

Yeah, go grab a tampon, your over drama tendencies are in full swing... You show me the inaccurate statement I made. Go on. Where's the inaccuracy?
/r/MensRights11/09/16 05:15 PM
2

Deductive is you deduce, inductive is you try and put yourself in the persons exact predicament and then try and deduce with those influences and context. This is fucking spastic. OP was not in immediate danger from his foreskin. There was no pressing dilemma. We don't remove tonsils, appendices, gall bladders or spleens by default and they cause far worse trouble at a far greater rate than foreskins. This was not a decision that needed to be made in the heat of the moment. It was making an ampu…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 04:52 PM
1

I'm late, OP, but as I disagree with the majority I thought I'd talk to you anyway. I think that regardless of the norms at the time or what they may have been told by doctors, it was wrong and no one medically competent to live outside an institution should have been unable to see that. Even if there were medical benefits to circumcision, in almost no cases has anyone with access to basic hygiene facilities ever been severely harmed by possession of a foreskin before the age by which they could…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 04:46 PM
1

what if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant, what if it's too late for an abortion, what if? Her body, her choice to not pay attention.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 04:32 PM
1

pay back any monies to the duped dad involuntary caregiver. Plus interest, damages, pain and suffering, payment for the time they spent as carer to a random stranger's child. Likewise damages and pain and suffering to the actual father in situations where he was simply not informed as opposed to voluntarily out of the picture. That's just partial restitution to the victims, however. There needs to also be a justice element and under our current system that means prison. Then there's the interest…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 12:30 PM
–

Trust me, that's not true for all of us women. The guy looks friendly and happy and has a brain in his head. He shouldn't have any trouble finding a sane woman.
/r/MensRights11/09/16 10:12 AM
–

I've explained the situation to you in two posts now. The only irony here is someone using feminist tactics to invalidate an argument with feels in a mens' rights community. Actually make an argument or accept that your invalid claims are going to be corrected.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:32 PM
–

No, you literally haven't. You've SAID that the analogy isn't apt, but you've had it explained to you several times over and failed to find a flaw. If an analogy has a flaw it can be explained. Flawed arguments are not ineffable. If you cannot explain the flaw, do not pretend there is one.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:30 PM
5

unless you're going to tell me that all rape victims who have babies from rape are the people who are doing this. That doesn't have to be the connection. Innocent men are being accused of needing to be taught to resist their impulses to rape; by analogy satirically attempting to 'teach' women not to toss their babies in a dumpster does not require them to actually be doing it. Tossing babies in dumpsters is not as widespread a problem as rape, but making everyone of an entire gender accept their…
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:29 PM
–

Your opinion is invalid. You have to demonstrate a flaw in the analogy if you want to not be corrected when you make objectively wrong claims about it.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:26 PM
–

Once again you've had it explained to you that the analogy is perfectly apt, and once again you're going around spreading your incorrect claims about it without actually demonstrating shit.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:25 PM
–

It's been explained to you why you're incorrect. The analogy is apt; that you've just whined about downvoting and being corrected shows that you don't have a leg to stand on in your original claim. Act like an adult and not a feminist and admit you were wrong.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 05:23 PM
1

...what?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/09/16 09:28 PM
1

Just three posts and he's already talking about physical removal. I am so proud. /me wipes eyes
/r/PussyPassDenied05/09/16 12:06 PM
4

I'm a manager by the way. I'd NEVER allow my boss to make me fire someone without just cause and if they forced me to I would be walking out the door alongside them. And that is YOUR part of using social shunning of distasteful but non-criminal actors to encourage them to act in a way that reflects community values. Like you, if I disagreed that there was reasonable cause to fire someone I would boycott a company I believed to have done so, with both my custom and labor. However, with the caveat…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/16 08:10 PM
–

Employers have every right to hire and fire for whatever reasons they please. That includes where I would disagree with those reasons. I never suggested a link between this behavior and her performance at work, you merely assumed that. I don't see why the two things have to be related. You are taking the hotels word here with no context or real facts and saying "ruin the woman's life by firing her for something completely unrelated to her performance and image at work" The facts are there in the…
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/16 06:24 PM
2

Only one of those commas was egregious.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/16 06:12 PM
–

That's irrelevant. If the local laws allow the employer to do so, firing her in solidarity with another small business, while not a moral duty would certainly be a very good thing to do.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/16 06:11 PM
1

She should not have been allowed to remain on the show. Someone who will raise their hands over such utter nonsense cannot be trusted around knives, hot oil and heavy pans.
/r/PussyPassDenied04/09/16 02:06 PM
2

But, writes Jo Fox, such a law would only harm women and their children. Sure it would, but they can always opt not to sleep around. You can absolutely be harmed by being required not to harm others, but in this case it is on you and you have to accept that consequence. However, this part is unacceptabe: his week the German Justice Minster sought cabinet approval for a bill that would force women to divulge past sexual partners. Women should not be compelled to cause social damage to the men the…
/r/MensRights02/09/16 06:16 PM
3

It isn't more extreme at all. That myth should be disputed whenever it's encountered. MGM involves amputating a part of the penis involved in facilitating the natural and comfortable gliding of the penis during sex. Without it it's more of a brute force action. That's directly equivalent to many forms of FGM, literally preventing normal intercourse.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 08:12 PM
1

Also one of the links on their leads to a gambling site. So no, I don't think these are the right. It was the one that came up when I googled 'doctors against circumcision' and that was what was sold to us when my LGBT group was collecting. Wikipedia seems to think they're legit so I choose to believe I wasn't fucked over. As for their end goal (as far as I know): make more doctors stop mutilating children. Pretty simple stuff. There is a reason we look for both. Not really. Prevention > cure. O…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 06:11 AM
1

Which anti-circumcision group are you donating to exactly? Present tense, none. It's an issue I feel strongly about, but not one I've made a major part of my life. I've made one or two donations to Doctors Opposing Circumcision but my material charitable support has been to unrelated-to-circumcision childrens' charities in the past. EDIT: actually, I don't think those are the right guys. Except a cure can help both those currently suffering and those who may suffer in the future. Prevention > cu…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 05:42 AM
1

You can do both, we aren't simple-minded creatures. Or instead of donating to one cause I consider inferior I could donate more to the first. Prevention > cure, wherever possible. Certainly if everyone had that attitude it would suck horribly for those whose personal hopes are pinned on regeneration in their lifetime, but we all have our preferred causes and in this case mine is prevention and not cure. How does the site look dodgy? Meh? I didn't say it IS dodgy, I said it looks dodgy. I don't r…
/r/MensRights19/08/16 05:20 AM
1

To be honest, I'm not very interested in funding a cure for a form of amputation that shouldn't happen in the first place. I'd rather focus on making sure people who want to make amputees out of children are unable to do so in the first place. Doesn't help that that site looks pretty dodgy.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 04:58 AM
1

Thanks, but the only link relevant to foreskin just goes to claim that research is being done, not that it's approaching viability in bovines, let alone humans. I did check that before I said. What I am saying is that yes, we can regrow tissue, but causing extremely complicated tissue to reconnect to people in infinitesimal, fiddly ways is a harder issue and your process of assuming it'll all work out based on the logic that some other things do just isn't reliable.
/r/MensRights16/08/16 10:46 AM
1

Wikipedia isn't a source. That's fine, it's not your job to source on demand, but I'm gonna have to assume this is nonsense until I have time to look into it myself. I don't think you're malicious, but it sounds like stuff you're assuming because it seems logically consistent with our lay peoples' understanding. Thank you anyway.
/r/MensRights15/08/16 11:08 AM
1

Yeah, but I'm asking for actual research. It would be cool if true, but it's not the sort of thing you treat as actual knowledge worthy of retaining and redistributing later based on a reddit post that sounds like it consists of what the poster thinks is logically consistent. Specifically the part I'm interested in is the idea that a regenerated foreskin (not merely stretched shaft skin) can undo a lifetime of amputation's effects on sensitivity, glans toughness and proper musosal + plasma cell …
/r/MensRights14/08/16 02:04 PM
1

Is there any actual research demonstrating this?
/r/MensRights13/08/16 09:10 PM
–

That won't fix the desensitization depending on when a foreskin is regenerated, and it doesn't make it okay to continue making amputees out of baby boys.
/r/MensRights13/08/16 10:18 AM
7

Doubling down on slander that hard in the face of a 1% chance at actually getting punished for it is a certain kind of ballsy, I suppose.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:21 AM
1

At first I did, and I made it, several times over. Now I'm just enjoying myself.
/r/MensRights27/07/16 12:10 AM
1

... you do realize when you reply, it defeats the purpose of pretending you've left with dignity?
/r/MensRights26/07/16 10:00 PM
1

Hahaha, the troll who has called amost every psychologist, neurologist, paediatrician and trans person on the planet a child molester has blocked me. Blatant attempt to get out of the lost conversation while seizing moral high ground. I realize you're going to pretend not to have seen this, but I've messaged you and got through, so you know you're gonna read it, so do I and now so does the peanut gallery. You're sad-cringe incarnate.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 09:48 PM
1

There are very, very few quacks that promote this type of thing anyway, LOL. I wonder why you're sooooo invested in this? Correcting fucktards on the internet is a calling.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 09:18 PM
1

In that case so must be almost every psychologist, neurologist, paediatrician and trans person on the planet. What's more likely, all of those people are child molesters or you're just a hateful piece of shit?
/r/MensRights26/07/16 05:17 PM
1

There is an infinitesimal % of actually trans people, the chances that he just happened to wind up with 2 radfem lesbians is pure coincidence? You have no concept of probability, and don't know what you're talking about. That you keep conflating sexuality with gender identity is proof of that. You're embarrassing yourself, and your betters are doing fine.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 12:20 PM
1

They're known perfectly well enough to justify halting the absolute, 100% certainty of irreversible physical changes to people who may later kill themselves or hate themselves for the rest of their lives. Delaying puberty is fine. It's all fine. Don't worry about it. You don't need to have an opinion on this topic. The professionals know what they're doing.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 12:19 PM
1

What your moral and intellectual betters are doing is treating a little girl who will grow up deformed otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 10:27 AM
1

Except the professionals involved, whose qualifications don't rely on prejudiced retards' consent.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 07:51 AM
1

Yes, it can be said with authority. The many, many trans people who've known all their lives what gender they are can tell you that they knew before puberty, myself included, and that going through the wrong puberty ruins lives. I started HRT partway into a very delayed puberty and I suffer from physical deformities introduced by the wrong puberty. You have no right to inflict that upon a child.
/r/MensRights26/07/16 07:50 AM
1

Having been through transition myself I can tell you that it is not an on demand service and certainly not accessible to crazy parents who're pushing their child into something. The process of transition, the WPATH-SOC psychologists who treat transsexuals subscribe to, is designed specifically to prevent people who don't need to transition from doing something permanent. We can be absolutely certain that this is the right thing for the child if the doctors involved are signing off on it.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 05:31 PM
1

So, again, prejudice; professionals whose conclusions make you feel icky are quacks? That's prejudice.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 05:29 PM
1

Yeah, that's not how it works. Your intellectual betters, who spend their careers working out what's best in these circumstances, are on top of this. Don't worry about it.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 04:52 PM
1

So prejudice then.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 04:18 PM
–

You think the shrinks involved, whose careers, reputations and money are on the line, don't account for that risk?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 12:35 PM
-2

Less relevant than the immediate knowledge that going through the wrong puberty is a life ruined.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 12:34 PM
–

Less harmful than going through the wrong puberty.
/r/MensRights25/07/16 12:32 PM
–

No permanent decision is being made. Not providing these treatments would be a permanent decision, on the other hand. Puberty blocking medication is safe and while not as helpful to later quality of life as being on the correct HRT does no permanent physical damage to children. On the other hand, ignoring a little girls' medical needs so they grow up irreversibly masculinized would be child abuse. You can't begin to conceive of the horror that is going through the wrong puberty, knowing that it …
/r/MensRights25/07/16 12:28 PM
1

We need to try to make sure any potential buyers know they'll be inheriting a staff full of sexist, racist and authoritarian zealots. I don't know Twitter; how would we go about drawing attention to this shit there?
/r/MensRights13/07/16 09:19 PM
13

That's not a fun fact at all. That's a very depressing fact. I want my blissful ignorance back!
/r/MensRights13/07/16 07:41 PM
-2

Like I said, only if a pedantic cop wanted to make an issue of it. No one reasonable sees yelling as a big deal.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/16 02:39 AM
–

To an autist's definition of that, sure. A pedantic pig could certainly claim as much, and probably would since the 'victim' of the shouting is a woman.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/16 02:36 AM
–

Think that guy meant that he could yell at her even if they were in her car, if she could afford one. She could kick him out but he could still yell. Yelling isn't a crime.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/07/16 01:25 AM
-1

Ah, I see. The teacher-student prohibition thing certainly shouldn't be a law, though it could perhaps justifiably be school policy - though not in a publicly-funded school.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/16 11:07 PM
1

Irrelevant. It's entirely relevant to a discussion about whether or not sixteen year olds can consent to sex. Not arbitrary, based on a developmental bell curve to apply to the majority. And once the law is set, that's the rule as long as it stands. You want something different, then you first change the law before you do it. Nope. People should disobey immoral laws. Breaking laws is only inherently illegal, not inherently immoral. Murder would still be bad in the absence of words on paper, but …
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/16 11:00 PM
1

Which part is wrong, exactly? I was agreeing. I even said age of consent varies.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/16 09:34 PM
–

That's words on paper. Ability to consent is far more complicated than that. Plenty of people are plenty mature by sixteen - I was living alone by that age. 16 being designated as incapable of consenting is as disinteresting and ultimately arbitrary a rule as claiming all drunken sex is rape. Whether or not the kid in this case could be considered Gillick competent I couldn't say, but a blanket statement that all sex with sixteen year olds is rape is absurd and based on no more rationale than wo…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/05/16 08:08 PM
–

Pretty sure the title is in error. Around half (49%) of all attacks were group based. Women were involved in most group attacks
/r/PussyPassDenied14/05/16 04:18 AM
1

There's no such thing as 'privilege'.
/r/PussyPassDenied14/05/16 04:16 AM
2

Doesn't seem clear if so.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 01:15 PM
–

You've got a point, actually. People who're downvoting you might be thinking a few levels below the ultimate argument in favor of feeding your children - 'you brought them into the world', 'they rely on you' - but they all come under the umbrella of 'right thing to do'.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 12:42 PM
–

It's not volunteering to be conscripted, it's being conscripted to be conscripted. Men would suffer violence if they resisted the process and punishments government will impose for non-violence non-compliance.
/r/MensRights26/04/16 12:40 PM
1

This is true. I can very much see certain kinds of 'parent' getting very angry if their kids' modern art wasn't treated with reverence.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:59 AM
2

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/c/c6/Alice-facepalm.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140910040316 Some children who get molested grow up just fine too. Doesn't mean you should molest children. Likewise, a single instance of this sort of celebration of non-achievement isn't going to taint a child for life. Doesn't mean it should be encouraged.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:51 AM
2

When you reward kids for achieving the bare minimum level of adequacy in situations which literally have no fail state short of acute leukemia, that's how you get kids who grow up to throw tantrums and scream for free money because they don't find a job involving their liberal arts degrees within a month of leaving college. A going-away party would be fine. It should just be called that, not a ceremony, and certainly not a graduation ceremony. They can say goodbye to their friends and teachers w…
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:37 AM
1

Some people might be willing to concede a possible educational justification for encouraging scribbling at that early an age, because encouraging an interest in artistic expression is seen as inherently desirable for some reason (though personally I think that's how we get lifer McDonalds staff) but the 'graduation' thing is just too much.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:35 AM
3

An uncomfortably large chunk of my generation grew up retarded from getting medals for showing up at sports day, and I don't feel like celebrating non-achievements even earlier than that is the way to fix the next generation.
/r/MensRights23/04/16 12:31 AM
5

What's been done to this man is terrible and all, but I think the bigger issue here is: 'graduating' pre-school is an achievement now?!
/r/MensRights22/04/16 10:14 PM
0

Or just rip down the sexist bullshit, exactly like would be done to a similar poster about 'femininity'.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 08:14 PM
–

On the other hand if you sit about being afraid to challenge sexism, it infects an entire generation of kids and becomes the new normal.
/r/MensRights17/04/16 04:58 AM
2

Then women will just choose doss jobs and still bitch about the pay gap. Oh wait. That already happened. In the 50s. The goalposts are always moving. There's no point trying to justify why we aren't worried about them.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 10:58 AM
4

...That's solar flares, not 'zig zagging' planets. Hell, it's not even MOST solar flares.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 09:37 AM
–

You were right to nope right the fuck out of there. That's a false rape allegation waiting to happen to some poor fucker who doesn't think to check this shit first.
/r/MensRights16/04/16 09:31 AM
1

Feminist MRAs probably consider themselves as much based on the old tenets of feminism, trying to 'reclaim' it from where it's gone, but that's ultimately a long-lost struggle and really not helpful to making people understand that modern feminism is about hate.
/r/MensRights09/04/16 11:23 PM
–

Or are you implying that men's right is anti-feminism? Men's rights certainly falls under the anti-feminist umbrella. That feminism promoted all equality in the past isn't very useful to bring up now; it's now overrun by people who hate men (especially white, cis, hetereosexual men).
/r/MensRights09/04/16 08:19 PM
2

I meant no one worthwhile ever bothers to add the dollar sign in this useless bint's name. She's not worth it.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/16 09:47 PM
–

Who knows? No one worthwhile ever did it whether she does or not.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/04/16 09:02 AM
1

Only if this - and all other exploitation of male victims of unwanted childbirth - were optional on the man's part.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/16 04:08 PM
7

How long till it appears on Huffington Post as a man's fault somehow?
/r/MensRights02/04/16 06:00 AM
2

Well, justice is a public service. The public has an interest in knowing the justice it pays for and is subjected to is working as intended.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 12:08 PM
2

Not necessarily. Someone making claims of that kind isn't personally demanding justice on their own behalf, they're simply disclosing what they know about public entities.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 11:16 AM
–

People have a right to face their accuser, and a right to free speech (disclose their accuser). On the other hand, there's no right to gag other people from telling the truth about issues that are affecting their lives. Having to 'come out' even if you're a genuine victim is, and should be, one of the things you have to do to try to send someone to prison. The price of demanding justice from the public should be having to face the public. We can't have a return to the days of the star chamber.
/r/MensRights25/03/16 10:39 AM
–

Compulsorily naming victims/accusers for the public would just double any potential social fallout, and would deter actual rape victims from coming forward, since it is a heavily stigmatized crime. That's fine. The accuser's right to disclose who's accusing them supersedes any imaginary right to gag private individuals for the convenience and comfort of other individuals. Freedom of speech and the rights of the accused vastly outweigh any proposed 'right' to try to send someone to prison with no…
/r/MensRights25/03/16 08:49 AM
1

I don't agree at all. Not being extorted for money doesn't make the child unhappen. I can't imagine anything more abhorrent than forcing parenthood on someone, regardless of their gender. Being in physical possession of the fetus doesn't give a woman unilateral ownership. She can always insist on protection or abstain from sex if she doesn't want to risk not being allowed to inflict fatherhood on a man.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:21 AM
-2

The ethical guidelines the medical community abide are simply one set of guidelines. I disagree with current interpretations in many ways, on euthanasia being one example. They are not the be-all and end-all. I certainly think that a man's right to veto the use of his DNA to produce offspring supersedes a woman's right to not have an abortion, which is an extremely minor cost to her if performed quickly, compared to the staggering ethical costs of forcing fatherhood on a man, and if she forces t…
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:12 AM
1

There is no intellectual discussion that contains the notion of sperm as person. You're delusional and I want no part of it. You're going on ignore: I don't need to give crazy the time of day.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:15 PM
1

I stopped reading when you compared killing a person to aborting a pregnancy.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 08:03 PM
1

ANDALITE BA- sorry, wrong sub. If necessary. We already use police to enforce certain medical orders, I don't see why this would be different. When society transitions away from states and state police, rights enforcement agencies would do the same thing.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 03:42 PM
1

Reproductive rights are nothing but feels. China's one child policy was reals - would you blame people who broke that law based on 'feels'? EDIT: though, of course, had you read my post you'd have learned some of the 'reals' arguments for complete male reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights14/03/16 03:40 PM
-3

Right, that's how it's commonly looked at today, but I don't believe that's ethical and it doesn't have to be this way. Why shouldn't the exact same argument be used in reverse? 'She had sex, sometimes babies happen because of sex, that's kind of how this whole reproduction thing works' - therefore if she didn't want an abortion she could've not had sex. Fatherhood is a moral issue as well as a financial one. Not having to pay child support for a non-consensual pregnancy doesn't change that ther…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 02:57 PM
-4

A failed condom, a woman choosing to accept an unsheathed dick in her, a woman lying to steal a man's sperm or a woman raping a man should not be all it takes to force fatherhood on a man. Not just the financial state, the moral and philosophical one. Not carrying a child doesn't mean that being partly responsible for one existing would mean nothing to a potential involuntary father, and not being in a child's life or paying for it doesn't remove the state of fatherhood from him. People have a r…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 02:26 PM
-7

It's less his right to bodily autonomy than his right to refuse to allow his DNA to be used against his will. Yes there's a right to bodily autonomy, but there's also a right to determine one's own reproductive choices. Reproductive rights are too important to deny a say in them to the party who isn't carrying a fetus.Continuing a pregnancy should require consent - perhaps that should be one of the pieces of bureaucracy set in motion when a woman reports a pregnancy to her physician; identifying…
/r/MensRights14/03/16 02:02 PM
–

If a woman doesn't want to be a single mother with no child support she can get her tubes tied.
/r/MensRights13/03/16 11:59 PM
–

The thought that someone can propagate your DNA against your will is existentially horrifying (especially to people of certain philosophical outlooks such as childfree people, voluntary extinctionists or those with hereditary genetic predispositions to medical conditions), as well as counter-indicated by the jurisprudence behind other, seemingly unrelated laws protecting legal (not necessarily moral) rights. Just for example, if genomes can be patented, why not your family DNA? Obviously there a…
/r/MensRights13/03/16 11:56 PM
0

She was a victim at the time, sure. She's thirty now, so regardless of at what point any given individual thinks you can stop waiving childrens' mistakes, she's been past the point for a long time. If she'd come clean at fifteen, sure, I don't think there'd be a case for punishing her then. At thirty? Fuck no. She should never see the light of day again.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 11:13 AM
3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92jNokHpXBI
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:39 AM
1

So wait, why the fuck is no one talking about charging the woman? She hasn't been an impressionable child for a long time.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:07 AM
0

No, you are, and tedious about it too. The best thing you've been able to say for this message is that we can't prove there was negative intent behind it in a creepy kind of religious argument. It is not possible to be both literate yet unable to recognize the sexist flaws in this post. They are glaring and unmissable and as such could only have been left there on purpose. Your opinion is invalid and you're going on ignore. I don't need to waste my time entertaining the pointless whining of some…
/r/MensRights14/02/16 02:56 PM
–

It's pretty hard to miss the sexist nature of that message. It's not like it was spoken on the spur of the moment. Someone had to think of a message, type it up, consider it adequate then print it. They had plenty of opportunity to recognize the implications and deliberately left them there. That's ill will.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 08:20 PM
–

There's nothing good-natured about simultaneously dictating an entire gender's role, laying the blame for a problem at that gender's feet and completely ignoring the fact that that members of that gender can also be victims.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 03:00 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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