TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

omaolligain Archive

View 0 posts and 43 comments by omaolligain 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

SO means "Significant other"
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:44 AM
0

An argument would require two sides their wasn't. I made a point you made a sarcastic remark.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:56 AM
-1

He is not currently up for rape charges, no charges are filed. And, what he is being investigated for matches no US definition of rape.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:58 AM
-1

If they did not consent it is rape. Drugging someone and then having sex is rape. Having sex with a passed out person is rape. Having sex with a sleeping person is rape. Sex - consent = rape If your example, lacks consent, I consider it rape. Regret does not equal lack of consent. If your example has consent, it is not rape.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:58 AM
-1

What!? You are creating a straw man. Ive said no such thing. Women and men are physically forced to have sex, have been raped. Anyone who does not consent to sex and is then forced to have sex is raped. I've said nothing about "speaking up," at all. Your position is weak so your trying to assign poor premises to my argument, instead of debating what I actually have to say.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:40 AM
-2

No. One is about the right to control your own body. The other is about your financial obligations to your child. They are not related.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:32 AM
-1

I would say all physically forced rape is rape. And rape is not consenting to sex and therefore it's consequences. Any other definition, lying about ... or drinking to much... Ext. Is not rape. It may be despicable to lie about your protection but it is still concentual sex in which you choose not to wear a condom/other method personally. If you are concerned with deception you should always use your own protection regardless of gender. Your scenario about the man lowing about wearing a condom i…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 12:30 AM
-2

Assuming, both parents were willing participants in the conception is not the same as saying "Both parents were willing participants in sex". Unless there is someone out there who is unaware that sex can lead to conception, it is the same thing. People who willingly participate in sex but don't want conception are still aware it could happen they just are betting against it. They willingly engaged in an activity they knew could end in the birth of a child. As for my strawman: "Everyone who willi…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 10:39 PM
-3

...I think you're intentionally attempting to be inflammatory... I'm not, I firmly think this. some states don't allow abortion. All States allow abortion. Roe vs. Wade was a supreme court decisions and has the weight of the US Constitution behind it which out weighs any and all state law. In the current situation, the incentives are strong for entrapment. I agree, but that doesn't mean that compulsory child support as a concept is incorrect. It simply means we need to change how compulsory chil…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 10:17 PM
-3

You are creating a strawman. And your metaphor is even worse than the previous one. I have never claimed that people desire all potential consequences of a decision. I have sex, but I don't desire a child. But, I have to deal with it if I have one. A minor may not have willingly died but it certainly is a possibility, a possibility they are aware of. A possibility they are betting against. If they hadn't died and were only seriously maimed or otherwise injured, despite whatever compensation or a…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 10:11 PM
-1

He answered your question, he said abortions should be legal so long as men don't have to take responsibility for the kids that are born. Although his logic doesn't flow necessarily. Her body her choice. Implies that the choice is rooted in biology. Her choice, her responsibility. Ignores the fact that both partners choose to have sex, knowing the possible risks of said sex. ...she is to be fully responsible for the child. Is not based on the biology premises and is based on the faulty "unilater…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 09:38 PM
0

I agree their could be some sort of multilateral contract scenario like your registry idea or even a one-on-one contract scenario. Although, presently, such contracts are never held-up in court because the argument for child support is based on the idea of a Child's right to financial support and not the partners responsibility to the other partner for financial support. But, I do tend to agree with you.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 09:35 PM
-5

I ignored them because the topic wasn't breached. But, I would argue that men should have the right to retrieve a child abandoned without their consent. Edit: Women's right to abortion is unrelated to "consent to sex." It is based in the right to control ones own body. Yes women are afforded an additional choice, than men but it is a choice provided entirely on biological circumstance. Women's right to abortion is unrelated to "consent to sex," Pro-lifers fundamentally agree with that, as they d…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 09:10 PM
-5

Sure, you could do it, but most people would rather enjoy life. That is completely irrelevant. If female contraception is in use, requiring the use of a condom too is like requiring people to wear helmets in addition to wearing seat belts. Right, so when we engage in driving activities that have a high probability of resulting in a car crash we do. See all motor-sports. When we choose not to wear a helmet while driving to the mall we do so because we are not sufficiently concerned about the risk…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 09:07 PM
0

Adoption, usually does and should always require the consent of both parents when both parents are known. I know their are instances of children being adopted without the fathers consent but they are rare by comparison and I hold firmly opposed to that. Your example is ex post facto. No-one is arguing that parental responsibilities after the child is born should not be maintained. That is precisely what is being argued. The argument is that men should not be held responsible for child support if…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:57 PM
-2

The way we implement this "system" is where the rub lies, my friend. Yes. Child support should therefore incentivizes parents to include each other in the child's life. 50/50 custody means 50/50 responsibility for the child expenses 0/100 custody means 0/100 responsibility for the child. As it is now child support may encourage one parent to alienate the other and then receive funding for it. That is the problem. It has nothing to do with abortion. ... he had only 50% responsibility for conceivi…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:49 PM
-1

Women do, Women can similarly choose not to have sex, and can be and are frequently forced to pay child support to a father who has primary custody. Abortions are completely unrelated to any individuals obligation to provide for their child.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:39 PM
-9

That is a misnomer. Pro-choice refers specifically to the right to an abortion. Not the right to skip out on child support. Additionally, Men do have the right to choose to have a child or not to. They choose it when they decide to have sex without a condom. Men know the risks of having sex. They know they can abate those risks with a condom. But, they weighed the odds and choose knowingly to have sex without a condom, perhaps foolishly, because sex is awesome. That was their educated choice to …
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:24 PM
-1

The problem isn't grammar Nazis. It's people who aren't intelligible enough to spell.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:18 PM
-6

No, my point about muscle density was simply another unchangeable biological fact. Having a responsibility to ones offspring is a necessary part of society. It is not good to have fatherless children rampant throughout society. The problem is not the right to abortion as you are stating it is how custody and child support are set up. Currently child support incentivizes some mothers to alienate the father and then receive hefty child support as well. It should be the opposite. Parents child supp…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 08:09 PM
-13

The man choose to have sex. He knew sex could lead to pregnancy. He knew he could almost certainly eliminate that possibility with a condom. He choose, willingly to have sex by weighing the risks against the benefits. The man choose that having unprotected sex was worth the risk, if it meant they got to HAVE SEX. Men do have the choice. The choice to not have sex. Or, to use a condom. It is a fair and educated choice. Yes, it is inherently unfair that women get to choose unilateral whether to ha…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 07:39 PM
-7

I mostly agree with you. I'm pro-choice for abortions but I think child support should be compulsorily but based on custody so as to encourage equal custody and equal divisions of cost. If the courts legitimately, find the father so abhorrent as to warrant no custody then he should be equally stripped of responsibility for the child. A double edged sword. Fathers shouldn't get to just walk away from their kids. I do understand where you are coming from tho.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 07:28 PM
4

Massive troll.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 07:18 PM
1

nah, if you made a shitty rage comic and plastered it to the front page it'd be up-voted to all great transcendence.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:45 PM
-1

Oh, herrroh, Hans Bricks! FTFY: Oh, herrroh, Hans Blix (pronounced: Brix)! It's hard to take sarcasm when a quarter of it is misspelled.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:16 PM
3

The subreddit is about liberty as it pertains to men. NOT bitching about women, in general. Their are bound to be differences between men and women. Women may be more socially competitive. Men may be more professionally competitive. But, this has nothing to do with the rights or liberties of men. This reddit should not be about simply ranting about women. It should deal with issues of liberty: divorce, paternity, custody, professional discrimination, judicial discrimination, rape charges, "almos…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 06:02 PM
3

I could not agree more. This is the #1 post on MR right now. It is completely unrelated to the topic of MR. It is not even about rights or liberties of any kind. It is just circlejerk garbage. And, the only thing it does is perpetuate the stereotype that women are infantile. It is contrary to this reddits purpose, of promoting equality between men and WOMEN. These posts need to go elsewhere.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:59 AM
8

Maybe jannington, trolls MR. I don't know, I don't really care... But jannington certainly has a point here, this post and posts like it are completely unrelated to the topic of Men's Rights or any matters of liberty at all. This post belongs back in r/fffffuuuuuuuuuuu.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:43 AM
0

Ironically your insensitive statement, adequately sums up the over all message of this post.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:39 AM
19

This is completely irrelevant to the sub/reddit. "Men's Rights," entails that content should be about matters of liberty (notably involving men.) This post discusses neither rights nor liberties. It is a poorly articulated poorly drawn rage comic (which are stupid enough already) about a general observation regarding women. What aspect of men's rights are at issue here. None, none at all. This post is more appropriate back on r/fffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu or try r/circlejerk. Perhaps, create a separat…
/r/MensRights25/08/11 02:32 AM
2

Right 0% custody = 0 support, we should incentivize primary custody holders to engage the other parent. If court decides the other parent is so bad he/she shouldn't be allowed to have their child, it should cut both ways.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 03:21 PM
1

Actually, I was suggesting the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:52 PM
2

YOU want to be involved. YOU are not the person who needs to be forced to support their child. Deadbeat parents who do cut and run are the problem. Both parents need to be held responsible for the cost and rearing of their children meaning cost and custody should be in a best case scenario 50/50. I think personally that: percent of cost encored by child = percent of custody. If Mom has junior 70% of the time she should be required to pay 70% of the costs. Parents should not be allowed to bail on…
/r/MensRights04/08/11 06:00 AM
4

What a horrible article.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 07:11 AM
1

It's the diversity that provides benefit in this case. Nice try tho.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:30 PM
1

I would. For one you gain her debt when you marry. Second, You may have money later. Third, lay out guidelines for how assets will be split in the case you split up. Who gets the house, or do you sell it immediately and split the profits (and how?). Do you plan on having kids? Any details you can agree on, now, as to that.... Maybe you want to specify specific things you or she keep in the event of a divorce. You get the idea.
/r/MensRights21/03/11 04:58 AM
-2

I don't think assuming "entitlement mentality" of all women is a good path to take. This is definitely not a MR issue.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 09:29 PM
3

"women raising children singly is [better] than a heterosexual couple raising children." This is about the most blatant lie of the bunch. It doesn't even sound like what she did qualifies as a study. Did her institution grant her a PHD for this? Which should just go to show you how worthless purely academic degrees like "women's studies" are. Because, just about any "Social Studies (type)" undergraduate can tell you how this is wrong and documented. Just take a look at the number of single Afric…
/r/MensRights19/03/11 09:13 PM
1

Favorite line, from blog: tl;dr: Anal sex is much less painful if you use a properly viscous, inert lubricant.
/r/MensRights19/03/11 06:39 PM
2

This is off topic; nothing in here that I could relate to Men's rights. Did OP read the article?
/r/MensRights10/03/11 02:38 AM
3

First, one acting in self-defense must believe another person intends to use unlawful force against him. They have broken into your home and cornered you and your family, exposing you to an extremely volatile and dangerous situation Second, that belief must be reasonable. It is factual. Third, the threat must be imminent. You are cornered as is your family. You are maximally retreated. Fourth, the amount of force used must be proportional to the threat. You are cornered and face an unknown adver…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:27 AM
6

Correct me if I'm wrong but, if someone breaks into my house and at night while I'm sleeping, It is safe to assume my family and I are in danger. It is not possible to retreat further than ones home, and I am not required to flee my home by law. In fact by breaking into my home the burglar has in fact aggressed upon me and; in an extraordinary way, because my home can be considered my sanctuary, and he has violated that. I live in Detroit, and If I lived in certain parts of town I'd own a gun, I…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:18 AM
0

Sure, but I don't think that's what MRA's think of feminists. MRA's think that the Feminist Leadership is all largely misandrists (and the ones that are not are attacked by their peers) and they are largely correct. I think most MRA's think the majority feminist flock is largely agreeable.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 04:11 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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