TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

methsmith Archive

View 0 posts and 33 comments by methsmith 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

9/10
/r/MensRights09/08/13 01:39 AM
1

Did you read about it or see a video of it on the internet? If so, could you please share the link with me?
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:46 PM
1

I don't dispute that he has been accused of anything. What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not there is proof that the media, as OP's article states, said that he was guilty before any trial.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 10:36 PM
-1

I have looked it up, and I still can't find the evidence for what is claimed in the article.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:19 AM
2

I've also read countless articles about the adverse effects that feminist-indoctrinated teachers are having in our schools. Do you have a link to any of those? I'd be interested in reading them.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:38 AM
-1

Who presumed him guilty? Do you have a source for that? (and does that source confirm what the article in the OP claims?)
/r/MensRights21/01/13 01:25 AM
-8

So, to you, failing to cite sources for a claim is not a case of these journalists letting you down?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:45 AM
-10

They don't cite their claims, at least not in this article. Is that not reason enough to not trust them?
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:35 AM
-9

OP has tacitly claimed that AVFM's article is correct.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:23 AM
-9

It's the responsibility of those who make claims to back them with sources.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 12:00 AM
-7

The crimes he has been charged with were spread through all media outlets as fact before his first day in court has even arrived. There has been no trial but according to the media and of course feminists, this man was guilty. the media telling me he is a rapist Does anyone have a source for any of these claims? The article doesn't provide any.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 10:49 PM
-11

The only reason the money goes to the mother is because you can't just give child support money to the child. The money has to be spent by the guardian to pay for things the child needs.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 10:36 PM
1

Is that a rhetorical question?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 09:35 PM
1

Obviously it's wrong to intrude on people lives just to see if they might be committing a crime The article states that the mandatory musters are to make sure students are doing anything other than sleeping, criminal or not. So, your analogy is off.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 09:06 PM
1

Is that a rhetorical question?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 08:35 PM
2

If you don't understand how instituting a policy of having rape patrols would make a reasonable male midshipmen feel that he's being viewed as a potential rapist I don't dispute the feelings of the students in light of the new policy. What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not those feelings have any basis in reality and what the evidence of that reality is.
/r/MensRights20/01/13 08:25 PM
0

Could you point out how this policy treats all men as rapists? I see that the article says that there are men who feel that's the case, but is there any substantial evidence?
/r/MensRights20/01/13 04:43 PM
1

No.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 07:02 PM
1

I don't think that's why we hold drunk drivers responsible. We hold them responsible because they decided to drink while in a rational state of mind, and so they are responsible for the actions that result from that.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:42 PM
-3

So we used to have guns, men, and no rampages. First, do you have a source for that claim? Second, the way men are brought up in society changes over time. So even if your claim were true, it could be because of what men now experience and hadn't experienced before. Also, consider that almost every rampage murderer has been male and almost no rampage murderer has been female. Something is happening with men that isn't happening with women (or visa-versa) which causes the massive gender differenc…
/r/MensRights19/01/13 05:31 AM
-24

Sex is an interpersonal act and driving a car isn't.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 05:10 AM
-1

And do all of the leg-work for you? Anyway, the article you cite doesn't support the first sentence of your OP. Not explicitly, at least.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:54 PM
-1

So, you have no source for the claim?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 07:00 PM
-1

Do you have a source on the first sentence?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:22 PM
1

Source on that last sentence?
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:23 AM
0

Not even close.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:10 AM
0

it would have never happened if she didn't initiate it. My point is that that's false. It's not like he had no choice. He had a choice in how he defended himself. He could have stepped back instead of hitting her. So, even if "she initiate[d] it", that doesn't mean that getting hit was an inevitable consequence. ... she is still 100% responsible for putting herself in that situation. He would not have struck her if she didn't strike first That's only true if the guy was incapable of reacting in …
/r/MensRights17/01/13 03:08 AM
0

She "crossed the line" first. Yes. Is your point that it was thus permissible to hit her? If so, then consider the less violent option the guy had to protect himself (stepping back).
/r/MensRights16/01/13 09:46 PM
0

I grant that the guy had a right to defend himself. He had a right to self-defense in that situation. What I don't think you understand is that having a right to defend yourself does not always mean you get to hit someone. There are other options that he had open to him that would have guaranteed his safety: he could have stepped back out of range of being hit.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 11:26 PM
0

Uh, are you trying to attribute that quote to me? Because I never said anything about feelings. You're constructing a strawman argument.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:10 PM
1

It's more like, "this guy didn't have to hit her in order to defend himself, so all of these arguments about him being justified because of self-defense are bogus."
/r/MensRights15/01/13 09:20 PM
1

the simple fact is, the woman in the video would not have gotten hit at all, if the husband took a few steps back. FTFY
/r/MensRights15/01/13 07:58 PM
3

Backing away from someone you've backed into a corner is also self-defense. Hitting someone isn't always the best form of self-defense (if one can even call what the husband did an act of self-defense).
/r/MensRights15/01/13 06:22 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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