TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

pierresderriere Archive

View 1 posts and 174 comments by pierresderriere 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)
48

Social Issuespierresderriere/r/MensRights04/09/17 03:47 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

It's neither misinformation nor misleading.
/r/MensRights16/11/18 04:15 PM
2

Antisemitism is really a women's rights problem /s
/r/MensRights14/11/18 12:56 AM
4

They don't like the idea of the BSA or other male-centered organizations even existing in the first place, it doesn't actually matter what they do.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 04:07 AM
1

You must understand the issue isn't whether or not the BSA admits girls, it's whether or not the BSA exists at all.
/r/MensRights12/11/18 03:55 AM
15

There's a constant push to misconstrue efforts to end child circumcision as an attack on religious rights. In reality the circumcision itself is a violation of religious rights, you should have a freedom FROM religion as much as you have a freedom OF religion. What if that person later wants to join a religion that values complete bodily integrity?
/r/MensRights10/11/18 09:38 PM
7

You don't go out there asking women to play with your foreskin. I would if it didn't get cut off when I was days old.
/r/MensRights10/11/18 07:02 PM
7

You're right that there's always going to be some uncertainty when it comes to what happens in private between two people. Our legal principles nevertheless dictate that we presume the accused innocent until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Our legal system also operates such that not every issue need to make it to trial to be decided on fairly. It's not perfect but it's necessary to maintain efficiency.
/r/MensRights08/11/18 02:10 AM
10

I'm out And nothing of value was lost...
/r/MensRights06/11/18 06:59 PM
1

That's the only example you could find? Holy shit you're stupid.
/r/MensRights05/11/18 12:16 AM
4

You're still here? Dude, you lose, go fuck yourself.
/r/MensRights05/11/18 12:16 AM
12

We definitely see a lot of comments stating women or feminists as a whole. Wrong. Comments that are outright sexist are quickly downvoted or removed. Comments criticizing feminism or pointing out double standards or female privilege are rightfully highly upvoted. Criticism of feminism is not inherently wrong in any way. It's an ideology, not a gender, you'd best remember that next time you try to pull that fall equivalence bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 09:40 PM
18

redpill/altright/gamergate And the idiot shows his hand. Bravo, bravo. The only thing TRP and gamergate have in common is that they're lumped together by parrots like you. You obviously don't know shit about any of this, you'd best step out. You're just making excuses for not having to show evidence of this supposedly common phenomenon. Where have I seen that bullshit before? No, I call bullshit. You're full of shit, OP is full of shit, several other people I've asked for examples are full of sh…
/r/MensRights04/11/18 09:28 PM
1

So you could easily link to some examples then?
/r/MensRights04/11/18 06:55 PM
7

Wow no need to attack me like that. Wrong, you're either spreading lies, or making a retarded point, this deserves to be pointed out. Your post is both dishonest and stupid. I'm not for preeemtive banning So what exactly do you want then? Because we're talking about the fact that anyone can make a shitty sexist comment and it will get downvoted or removed, and that people like YOU hold those up as examples of a problem that needs fixing. What exactly are you proposing? and didn't even expose any…
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:53 PM
1

They don't point out examples because they'd inevitably link to a post that's highly downvoted or was removed by the mods. They're essentially saying they don't like the fact that we don't somehow preemptively ban sexist commentors before they can post.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:20 PM
3

Caught you lying again.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:16 PM
1

There's literally one post that could possible qualify, it's highly downvoted. It's like that with pretty much every post in every subreddit, some offensive comments get downvoted to the bottom quickly. Some people, like you and OP, either can't handle the fact the preemptive banning isn't a thing, or hold up such unpopular comments as examples of the popularity of the content of those comments...which is retarded.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:15 PM
2

Wow, you're a lying piece of trash.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:13 PM
1

What i'm asking is to stop the generalizations about women that some dudes here say and get upvoted for it. Can you cite some examples of highly upvoted sexist comments in posts with traction?
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:12 PM
1

I see one comment that could qualify, highly downvoted...where exactly is the problem?
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:11 PM
1

Sooooo many comments on this sub these days are like “look at this double standard all women blah blah blah and they get blah blah blah while men get shafted as they are blah blah blah” 3-month old account, all the posts for this sub made today, 3/4 in this post...this isn't fishy to anyone else?
/r/MensRights04/11/18 05:08 PM
1

Fuck off, this is concern trolling. Any outright sexist comments are quickly downvoted, there's literally only one post in this comment chain that could qualify and it's highly downvoted. You know what else is highly downvoted? Any post pointing this fact out or calling you a concern troll, which you are. Obvious brigade is obvious.
/r/MensRights04/11/18 04:38 PM
2

He said nothing about sharing anything. He's saying that seeing how the media falsely reports about the MRM has lessened his trust in the media in general. Not a difficult concept.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 05:10 PM
1

No, you clearly misinterpreted the person you initially replied to.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 05:09 PM
40

Read the entire article (you have to scroll past ads...twice). This lady claimed in an email that she was the author of the letter. It doesn't really matter who wrote the letter at this point, once you put your word behind a lie it's the same as if you'd spoken the lie directly.
/r/MensRights03/11/18 05:06 PM
18

Such a great bit
/r/MensRights03/11/18 04:25 PM
5

No, legal inequality is. Feminists have routinely fought for and in many instances succeeded in reducing men's legal rights. Feminism is more a problem that when fixed can help. Good luck, for starters how about getting an admission that misandry is actually a problem. Don't hold your breath. Feminist bashing Call it what it is: CRITICISM. Calling it "feminist bashing" is just an underhanded way to make it seem somehow wrong to criticize feminism. It's not. by making it harder to change feminist…
/r/MensRights02/11/18 07:29 AM
1

When women are the minority of victims: "All victims deserve attention no matter the gender!" When women are the majority of victims: "This is a women's issue!"
/r/MensRights01/11/18 08:34 AM
19

Still less humiliating that openly supporting baby penis cutting. No idea what kind of fucking weirdos think that's an ok thing to do.
/r/MensRights31/10/18 06:37 AM
11

The only people making this a competition are opponents of FGM who insist on pointing out how male circumcision isn't as bad as FGM, but then pull the "why you making it a competition" bullshit out as soon as we have to defend the fact that male circumcision is a serious issue.
/r/MensRights26/10/18 01:37 AM
7

I doubt you'll find a single opponent of male circumcision that doesn't think FGM is a real issue. However the flow of idiots who oppose FGM but insist on belittling the harm of male circumcision as a knee-jerk reaction is endless. Even now people will go as far as defending male circumcision while fiercely opposing FGM.
/r/MensRights26/10/18 01:35 AM
11

Your skull could stop nukes. The US Federal Government, EU, UN, etc. have all put in place statutes banning FGM in all forms, even the most minor forms far less severe than male circumcision. Furthermore the topic of FGM is routinely brought up as evidence of how women are oppressed. Meanwhile male circumcision, which as I mentioned is more severe than some of the forms of FGM which are outright banned, is perfectly legal in western countries, and even defended, often by staunch opponents of FGM…
/r/MensRights26/10/18 01:27 AM
1

OP could have replaced "her" with "his ex-wife" to make it more clear that it's not referring to Lopez.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 07:38 PM
1

OP could have replaced "her" with "his ex-wife" to make it more clear that it's not referring to Lopez.
/r/MensRights24/10/18 07:38 PM
1

People like you provide a fairing of legitimacy for outright misandrists.
/r/MensRights14/10/18 05:04 PM
2

As I mentioned above, making a rule to punish accusers if they can’t prove their case will lead to counter-suits How thick is your skull? The only person who is talking about a rule like that is you. That is your own ignorant fantasy based on your own lack of knowledge about this topic. Like where are you pulling the word countersuit from? We're not talking about civil proceedings, and in criminal proceedings the state pursues charges, not the victim, there are no counter-suits. This would liter…
/r/MensRights10/10/18 04:21 PM
1

if we start jailing anyone who can’t prove their case. You're getting downvoted, as well as the person above you, because you're getting it wrong, very wrong, like you have no idea how our legal system works wrong.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 12:53 PM
9

False equivocation isn't a thing. It's just equivocation. So tell me which word or phrase have I used ambiguously here? None, the phrase you're looking for is "false equivalence" (leave it to a dipshit who doesn't think everyone deserves the presumptiopn of innocence to have no fucking clue how to identify a logical fallacy in an argument). I've made no equivalence here. I'm pointing out how disregarding the presumption of guilt merely because this is about "social consequences" and not a crimin…
/r/MensRights02/10/18 06:24 PM
–

You know lynchings aren't a criminal trial either, are you cool applying your shitty standard when it's a poor black kid being beaten to death? Take your shitty motte and bailey elsewhere, nobody is buying it here.
/r/MensRights02/10/18 06:12 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
/r/MensRights02/10/18 05:28 AM
4

The only way you could say that is if you have no clue what the current state of employment laws are in France or CA. In reality employee protections in CA are more stringent than most other states, but far fall below what you see in the EU.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 08:29 PM
1

In my experience, the type of people that spout off things like that tend to be idiots. Seriously, there are thousands of statutes, I honestly doubt you've bothered to read a single one, you just parrot the same tired bullshit because other idiots upvote you for it.
/r/MensRights01/10/18 08:27 PM
2

Your somewhat trustworthy news articles already publishing identical articles. I guess they all of them just made the deposition up on the spot with identical wordings, many of the sources leaning right & left. More along the lines of they picked the line to toe ahead of time and shared notes, it would not be the first time. I believe that the deposition exists, I don't trust them to give us just the facts. After all, why would they paraphrase if they can give actual quotes? This is the exact sa…
/r/MensRights27/04/18 03:53 AM
1

I think you're both using different senses of the word "respect." You don't have to respect a jury's verdict in terms of thinking it was a valid, unbiased decision made by rational people. You should respect a jury's verdict in the sense that you should not form a lynch mob and apply justice as you see fit just because you don't like the outcome.
/r/MensRights27/04/18 03:41 AM
2

Like I said, they read the deposition out loud in court. If you don't believe me then that's fine, the 2006 deposition will be released and then you can make your decision on what you believe. Why would I believe you, and why would you expect me to? Taking people at their word with these kinds of things is outright irresponsible. The 2005 deposition definitely does support those claims if you'd read through it. It still deals with Andrea and the circumstances around how the drugs were distribute…
/r/MensRights27/04/18 02:40 AM
4

Given the publicity surrounding the accusations, and the prejudice espoused by the average person regarding them, I have a very, very hard time believing there were any impartial jurors left after jury selection.
/r/MensRights27/04/18 12:10 AM
1

Mate, I wasn't even in another thread. I mixed you up with the author of the post you linked to, to whom I asked a similar question. there's a 2005 and 2006 deposition. I linked you the 2005 one which is my bad. No, it's not your bad, it's your lack of intellectual rigor and honesty. You linked to a post which contained a bunch of claims, then linked to a transcript which supports NONE of those claims. That's on YOU. A tiny amount of due diligence on your part would have prevented that. AFAIK th…
/r/MensRights27/04/18 12:00 AM
7

The compelling reason here is that there doesn't actually appear to be any evidence beyond testimony, and given the publicity this case has received and the amount of prejudice the average person has expressed with regards to Cosby being guilty, the chances of getting an impartial jury here is practically zero. All the prosecutor has to do is eliminate the minority of jurors who think Cosby could be innocent or that testimony alone isn't enough and you can get a conviction.
/r/MensRights26/04/18 11:26 PM
1

I asked that person, who shared the same link later in that thread, and they didn't respond. Where in that transcript are any of the things you are claiming? I searched the document and nothing is coming up. Are you lying?
/r/MensRights26/04/18 11:22 PM
1

But you can sexually harass someone who is the same gender as you. The ONLY way to completely eliminate sexual harassment is to make sure that everyone is kept separate all the time.
/r/MensRights19/04/18 08:29 PM
3

You don't have religious beliefs though I literally just explained my religious beliefs to you: anyone who supports circumcision shall be burned at the stake. Now stop violating MY religious rights and hop on this pyre! and you presented a poor argument. I'm pretty sure you're just not intellectually equipped for the level of abstraction needed to realize why your own personal religious beliefs don't actually matter when it comes to the rights of others. I don't blame you, your type has never be…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 03:47 AM
2

So you think it's totally cool to do something to a child that violates their bodily autonomy based on your own religious beliefs, but you don't think it's ok for me to violate your bodily autonomy based on my own religious beliefs? So what you're saying is you just lack principles? Or do you think that children are property and don't have a right to bodily autonomy? If it's the latter, do you support the practice of FGM or Bacha bāzī? It sounds like you do. There's no way you're making it out o…
/r/MensRights19/04/18 12:57 AM
8

My religion says that it's ok to burn people like you to death. By your own logic that's totally fair. I'll set up the pyre, can you make it here by 7? If you don't show up you're violating my religious rights.
/r/MensRights18/04/18 09:43 PM
1

I mean disingenuous as in your consistent insincerity when it comes to representing opinions other than your own. I opted to label you as maliciously dishonest rather than outright stupid. Consider it a compliment. And thanks for replying. Could you clarify whether you support the historical lynching of black men, or whether you lack principles? Because there's literally no way at least one of those things isn't true about you based on what you've said in this thread.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 12:08 AM
1

You realize someone else wrote that right? I just chimed in after to point out that as of now there is no evidence being brought against Cosby, only allegations, which is to anyone with reasonable principles not enough to judge someone guilty. Like I already said, you're a disingenuous piece of trash. I might as well continue pointing out that you either support the historical lynching of black men or lack principles, there is no other alternative.
/r/MensRights15/04/18 06:04 PM
8

The testimony is public record and it's abundantly clear that he didn't admit to forcing drugs on anyone. Though that didn't stop the media from going wild with the headline "Cosby admits to getting Quaalude scrips so that he could give it to girls he wanted to have sex with." It also didn't stop millions of idiots who don't read anything but the headlines from interpreting this as "Cosby admits to date-rape."
/r/MensRights14/04/18 01:18 AM
1

He hasn't admitted to anything. He admitted to giving women Quaalude, at a time when recreational use of Quaalude and casual sex under its effects was relatively common.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 08:22 PM
2

But you've already made your judgement clear. You think all these women are lying - i.e they've done something illegal. Can you point out where I said that, or are you full of shit and putting words in my mouth? Yeah, that's what I thought, gtfo you disingenuous piece of trash.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 08:11 PM
11

Come on man, even Dave Chapel went on stage and basically said "Shit, I think Cosby actually did it". Is Dave Chapel some sort of clairvoyant, or were you talking about the comedian, Dave Chappelle? I wasn't aware that "appeal to comedian" was a valid argument technique. I don't think anyone should be sent to prison solely on another person's word, but I think it's safe to say we've reached a point where no woman in her right mind should ever accept a drink offered by Bill Cosby. Translation: Pu…
/r/MensRights13/04/18 08:04 PM
9

Well the phone recording where he discusses it hasn't been publicly released yet (it's an ongoing court process). But probably even that won't make you change your mind. Unlike rabid idiots like you I'm happy to withhold my judgement until such evidence is actually released. Having principles isn't that hard, which really tells you a lot about the kind of people that hop on these bandwagons. Also - the fact that after his 2005 court case he settled with one specific accuser for 3.5 million USD d…
/r/MensRights13/04/18 05:43 PM
0

So allegations alone are all you need? A lot of black men have been lynched thanks to that retarded mentality. Good to know some people haven't learned a thing from history.
/r/MensRights13/04/18 05:06 PM
1

Or do you think that everyone are lying? That Bill Cosby didn't drug and rape anyone? Are you assuming the allegations are true despite no proof being bright forward?
/r/MensRights13/04/18 04:14 PM
7

That whole sub is trash. Real lawyers don't give advice on Reddit, you'd be better off doing an internet search for your answers than going to that sub. And that's not even mentioning the mods, who are a stunning example of how a tiny amount of power can go to your head.
/r/MensRights05/04/18 12:29 AM
5

Neither incels nor MGTOW are subsets of the MRM. They're part of the "manosphere" along with the seduction/PUA communities and things like TRP, but to equate the MRM/MHRM with all other communities or movements that focus on men is inaccurate.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 02:08 AM
16

I think you're missing the point. We have laws in place which for good reason prohibit sexual relations between adults and children (statutory rape laws). In practice these laws are applied much more leniently with a female adult than a male one, despite the exact same crime being committed.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 07:43 PM
1

remember that the law doesnt discriminate .. its society that does.. We're literally talking about how the law is not applied equally to men and women.
/r/MensRights21/03/18 06:35 PM
7

Why are you so invested in making sure baby penises look a certain way? Leave 'em be you fucking pedo.
/r/MensRights17/03/18 05:54 PM
0

Woooooooooosh
/r/MensRights14/03/18 11:26 PM
1

I was mocking you for responding to a post by just rephrasing what the person before you said and not adding anything new. I thought it would be more obvious.
/r/MensRights14/03/18 10:07 PM
1

Precisely. This resembles Harvey Weinstein, however due to it being done by a famous woman society tolerates such behavior.
/r/MensRights14/03/18 09:58 PM
2

Your first mistake was assuming that they know what "diversity" actually means.
/r/MensRights12/03/18 11:31 PM
1

It's still wrong for a child to hit an adult though...they didn't really think this through did they?
/r/MensRights12/03/18 05:45 PM
2

You don't need to be tough to be a man, but being tough is undeniably associated with masculinity. Quit it with the disingenuous bullshit please.
/r/MensRights10/03/18 05:57 PM
3

How exactly does that justify collective action against an entire gender?
/r/MensRights09/03/18 10:59 PM
1

but what they have accomplished is pretty awesome. They've done some good but they have also done plenty of bad, stupid, and/or shady things. Notably rallying against GTA IV, proposing all new vehicles include ignition interlock devices, encouraging sobriety checkpoints and accusing opponents of being drunk drivers, and supporting beer taxes but not liquor taxes. Basically moral panic combined with bureaucracy and a hint of corruption and extremism.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 10:30 PM
6

That sub is garbage and the mods that run it are a classic example of people who've let a tiny amount of power go to their heads. If you need legal advice go to a lawyer. Actual lawyers don't give free advice on the internet, and are hesitant to give advice to non-clients at all.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 06:48 PM
3

The metoo fad was out of hand as soon as it started. Quid pro quo exchange of sex for career success was outed to the public and the kneejerk reaction is to crucify the men involved but not hold any of the female players accountable. If you're the whore in an instance of high-class unstated prostitution you aren't a victim, you're an accomplice.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 06:04 PM
5

To me it is a case of virtues. Some women are not pious enough to stay virgins until marriage. Why should they drag unwanted sin into their marriages? /s
/r/MensRights02/03/18 09:18 PM
2

The legal definition of consent is different than the one you are using. No, minors cannot consent to sex.
/r/MensRights02/03/18 09:06 PM
2

That's six more half marathons than I've ever done. Good for him.
/r/MensRights28/02/18 09:25 PM
12

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Diversity is homogeneity.
/r/MensRights14/02/18 10:31 PM
13

STDs that can and do affect developed nations, you mean? Developed nations that have condoms, which are far more effective at preventing the spread of STDs than routinely circumcising babies. Are you suggesting that we can't trust men to use condoms so we should circumcise entire male populations involuntarily for a slight benefit? That's retarded. FFS you're criticizing WHO - a board of renowned researchers and scientists who have dedicated years of their lives to this cause? Give me a break. I…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:56 AM
7

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing facts on this sub. I was, whereas you lazily linked a wiki article that you didn't even bother to read. If you are arguing that routine infant circumcision is justified by a few diseases that occur in a small fraction of people that are perfectly treatable, or that circumcising babies in the US somehow affects HIV transmission in Africa, you have bigger problems than your fragile ego. But apparently we're only considering the alleged downsides for white mi…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:46 AM
15

Circumcision may be used to treat pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic or recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Medically necessary procedures aren't what this thread or what anyone here is discussing. The World Health Organization promotes circumcision to prevent female-to-male HIV transmission in countries with high rates of HIV. You know, like Africa. Even then it's a harmful claim to make. Condoms are far more effective. as long as the program includes "informed…
/r/MensRights14/02/18 06:33 AM
48

When looking for guidance on something it's usually better to not look to organizations made up specifically of people who profit from that thing. Listening to the AAP about circumcision is like listening to Exxon Mobil for environmental regulations. Not to mention how none of the suggested benefits would warrant prophylactic surgery if they applied to any other part of the body, especially so on infants. By their very own guidelines you could probably justify infant mastectomies and many forms …
/r/MensRights14/02/18 03:38 AM
1

Olympics commercial: "Thanks MOM" Hooray! Go women! Yeah! Random ass sign: "Thanks men!" Boo! Misogyny! Tear it down!
/r/MensRights09/02/18 10:01 PM
30

What’s the difference? 75% more of than $3 is $5.25. A $2.25 difference. 75% less of $3 is 75% less than $.75 $12.00. A $2.25 $9.00 difference FTFY $1.50 is 50% more than $1. $1 is 33% less than $1.50. You can't leave the percentage the same when it is referring to different amounts if you don't want to screw up the comparison.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 09:31 PM
10

If you need to be able to mutilate your children to really be a Jew or Muslim, then both religions deserve to be banned. And before you get up in arms, I'm a former Jew and couldn't be happier to have left that bullshit behind long ago. The world would be better off without your bronze age nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:53 AM
3

Not to mention it cuts both ways. Offering sex to a superior for an employment related benefit is sexual harassment in the exact same way that soliciting sex from a subordinate is.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:13 PM
1

The pink set should be more. It has a built in anti-theft feature
/r/MensRights21/01/18 03:18 AM
1

I meant the bathroom door, not the stall door.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 10:52 PM
2

You can lock the door. It's now considered a single-occupant bathroom.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 10:27 PM
4

I would say the biggest obstacle is cut men who are basically real-life examples of Aesop's fable "The Fox without a Tail." Some people have big, fragile egos, and what part of the body is more closely associated with egos than penises? Getting some cut men to admit that circumcision isn't better, and in fact is a violation of fundamental human rights that may make their sexual experience less pleasurable, is akin to saying that there is something wrong with their penis. More sensible people wil…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 10:25 PM
1

Hoist by his own petard, if you will.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:35 PM
17

Was this in California? The bathroom law that went into effect last year requires that any single occupancy bathroom with a lock be labeled as unisex. Here's the catch: urinals don't count. So if you have a women's bathroom with two stalls and a men's bathroom with one urinal and one stall but otherwise in the exact same configuration, the men's bathroom is required to be labeled unisex.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 04:43 AM
5

It was also the original argument made for male circumcision. Not that it matters. It's not like FGM would suddenly be ok if they did it only for aesthetics or tradition.
/r/MensRights12/01/18 06:13 PM
0

It just would be a "nice gesture". Giving a BJ is a nice gesture but I don't see signs on the subway encouraging women to blow nearby men who look stressed out.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 07:34 PM
17

Pretty early on I saw a girl I know make a #metoo post about men who make jokes that she didn't find funny but laughed anyways. Apparently that's oppression.
/r/MensRights10/01/18 05:12 PM
6

Your mistake is assuming that shitty people think of hypocrisy as a bad thing.
/r/MensRights29/12/17 12:17 AM
8

Depends on the state, that terminology isn't universal.
/r/MensRights26/12/17 08:45 PM
1

I didn't say that it does. You certainly implied it, don't be disingenuous. I'm saying that going to the police can be both frustrating and unhelpful and isn't the best way to solve all sexual assault cases. Best is a very subjective term. The "best" way in my opinion is the way that doesn't skirt due process and isn't ripe for abuse. The best police can do is work with the information and evidence available. What did you honestly expect the police to do in the situation you outlined? Unquestion…
/r/MensRights25/12/17 06:00 AM
1

How does that justify going to the press or social media instead?
/r/MensRights25/12/17 04:55 AM
10

Ikr, advocating for the equal treatment of men under the law. The horror!
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:02 AM
11

It's not only women who pull shit like this, but both people in the example are women. How is it sexist to call those people disgusting? It's not like they said "all women are disgusting"
/r/MensRights27/11/17 04:44 PM
34

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/960/143/d7a.jpg
/r/MensRights27/11/17 04:41 PM
12

Marriage costs a filing fee with the county and then generally saves you money on taxes, rent, and food until you decide to have kids. It doesn't have to be expensive unless you're an entitled cunt or the spineless idiot she marries. If you've pigeonholed yourself into thinking that marriage has to cost thousands and that buying an expensive ring is a prerequisite, the only one destined for shit things is you.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 06:37 PM
1

Might as well argue in favor of FGM on the same basis.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 06:44 AM
1

Less work than what exactly? You've never been uncircumcised, how would you know? Do you think washing your penis is really that hard? Might as well argue in favor of FGM on the same basis.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 06:14 AM
16

How is it moronic to oppose unnecessary cosmetic procedures on infants? It seems like a pretty rational thing to believe once you put your ego aside.
/r/MensRights23/11/17 06:09 AM
7

You should read the fable "The fox without a tail"
/r/MensRights13/11/17 03:39 PM
1

Here's your problem: hypocrisy is only considered a bad thing by people who aren't complete pieces of shit.
/r/MensRights12/11/17 06:25 PM
1

Admitting he's a sick fuck yes Have you even listened to his comedy? I don't think Louis has for one second ever denied that he's a sick fuck. That's kind of the basis for his whole comedy persona. but according to the incels that have invaded the sub You seem to be kinda obsessed with the whole incel shtick. The only person "invading" this sub is you, and you're getting called out for it. it's the females fault apperently If someone asks if they can masturbate and you say yes and then stay in t…
/r/MensRights11/11/17 02:09 AM
2

Was someone raped in this case or did your delusional mind just go straight there?
/r/MensRights11/11/17 12:04 AM
1

He made a statement that was consistent about what was already known. Nothing has changed.
/r/MensRights11/11/17 12:01 AM
1

They are forcing you to pay more for the same ticket if you choose to buy it. That would be analogous to charging women more for the exact same product, not having different prices for different products with no gender restrictions. This isn't like they have a club with whiskey and paintball that anyone can go to for one price and a different club with pedicures and pony rides for a different price. It's the same product with differential pricing based on gender.
/r/MensRights01/11/17 02:20 AM
1

While an 11-year old can agree to something, we use the term consent to refer to a legal concept, one that specifically excludes children for good reason.
/r/MensRights25/10/17 05:29 PM
3

Hypocrisy is only thought of as a bad thing by people with integrity.
/r/MensRights24/10/17 01:18 AM
1

You're supposed to complain upstream to people that can do something about it? Complaining about police shootings and ignoring black on black violence is doing that how exactly? What are you gonna do sue your drug dealing neighbor? That's a straw man, it doesn't deserve a dignified response.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 08:03 PM
1

Apparently black lives don't matter unless the police are doing the killing. Black on black violence absolutely dwarfs police violence towards black people, but good luck getting BLM to talk about that issue.
/r/MensRights17/10/17 05:02 PM
18

I'm not talking about what people think, I'm talking about how the legal justification of releasing the identity of the accused on the basis of encouraging other victims to come forward doesn't make any sense. If we are presuming innocence on a legal basis, then the direct implication of that is that there are no presumed previous victims, which means you cannot justify releasing the identity of an accused person on that basis. The only way to justify that is to presume that there could be previ…
/r/MensRights20/09/17 06:20 PM
1

That sort of violates the whole innocent until proven guilty philosophy. You can't justify releasing the photo of an alleged criminal on the basis that there could be other victims when you haven't even established that the person is actually a criminal. If there are other legitimate victims that haven't come forward for whatever reason, they can do so once guilt is actually established.
/r/MensRights20/09/17 04:08 PM
20

Let's poke a big fat hole in this logic. Let's say that hypothetically a woman in power ordered that all women in a certain age range be systematically raped. Is it somehow less bad because a woman ordered it? If you answered "no" then good news, you aren't retarded. The fact that the victims and those causing the victimization share the same type of genitals has no bearing on how bad said victimization is. The only way you could possibly think something as cruel and absurd as that is if you bel…
/r/MensRights13/09/17 07:30 AM
1

Gotta make it sexy
/r/MensRights12/09/17 04:10 AM
3

Why were you subbed in the first place? It's better if people like you are against men's rights, it helps our cause when people see what kind of imbeciles can't handle discussing issues like this.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 05:26 AM
12

Actually I'm circumcised, it's amazing what kind of great things happen when you don't let your fragile ego do your thinking for you. Things such as not advocating child mutilation on the basis that you cannot admit that something could be wrong with your dick. Did you ever read the fable about the fox that got its tail cut off? This is elementary school level thinking, even you can't make it further than that apparently.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 05:23 AM
1

Care to elaborate? When you remove a relatively large section of highly innervated tissue that also protects another piece of highly innervated tissue, one that is manipulated to a large extent during intercourse, it's pretty hard to argue that it doesn't inhibit sexual pleasure.
/r/MensRights10/09/17 02:50 AM
22

I disagree, this is one of the clearest violations of the rights of males in the western world. Imagine if a law existed that prohibited tattooing a white baby, but not a black one, and it was commonplace for black babies to be tattooed in infancy, would that not be a major issue of human rights? Would people like you suggest that other more nebulous issues take precedent than this one, where a clear case of discrimination is being made by the letter of the law rather than its application by ind…
/r/MensRights10/09/17 02:45 AM
19

Even the most minor types of FGM are still illegal under federal law in the US, meanwhile circumcision is A-OK
/r/MensRights10/09/17 01:56 AM
5

Maybe they just don't tell you because they know you'll be unsympathetic?
/r/MensRights09/09/17 05:12 PM
3

All genders are equal. Some genders are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights08/09/17 06:30 PM
6

Therein lies the issue. If you're looking for sexism you'll find ways to ascribe it to people despite it being impossible to know someone's motivations unless they outright tell you.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:56 PM
–

Being factual is patronising when the person you're talking to is an idiot.
/r/MensRights07/09/17 05:53 PM
8

Any bathroom with a lock on the door and only one toilet must be designated as unisex. Urinals do not count. Companies are just complying with the law in most cases, however this law seems to be poorly conceived. If the intent was to make sure transgender people aren't forced to use the wrong bathroom, why not just have the law apply to that? This seems like a roundabout way to eliminate men's rooms. If having gender-exclusive restrooms was the issue, then why have any gender exclusive restrooms…
/r/MensRights04/09/17 12:08 PM
6

I agree, there is really no point in have single-occupancy restrooms be gender-exclusive. But in cases where only one gender-exclusive bathroom is eliminated by the law, it's the men's room. That's what I take issue with. Hypothetically if there were space in the women's room and the unisex bathroom was being used, a woman would be allowed to use the empty toilet but a man would have to wait. If the women's room were full then a man or woman could use the unisex bathroom, but if the unisex restr…
/r/MensRights04/09/17 05:51 AM
1

I've seen this in several places now already. It was a common configuration to have a women's restroom with one or two normal stalls, a handicapped stall, and a sink. For the men's room it would be one or two urinals, a handicapped stall, and a sink. However I've also seen places where the men's room was just a single-occupancy restroom with a urinal and a toilet, and the women's room had multiple stalls. In either case, when the rule applies unevenly and only one of the gender-exclusive bathroo…
/r/MensRights04/09/17 05:35 AM
17

On March 1st a California law went into effect which requires all single-occupancy restrooms to have unisex signage. "Single-occupancy" in this case refers to any bathroom with a single toilet (urinals disregarded) that locks from the inside. So if a bathroom has a lock and has two stalls and is meant for two people to use at once, it is fine to label it as gender exclusive. If it has a stall and a urinal and locks from the inside, even if it was originally meant for use by two people at once, i…
/r/MensRights04/09/17 03:56 AM
9

Calling us faggots isn't going to convince anyone that cutting baby dick is ok.
/r/MensRights29/08/17 09:20 PM
1

I don't know the situation here but I can't help but think that she isn't injured and could walk just fine, but doesn't want to get her feet wet. Anyone have context for this photo?
/r/MensRights28/08/17 09:28 PM
7

You should probably pay more attention to usernames, it looks kind of lazy when you assume everyone in a comment thread replying to you is the same person.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:54 PM
1

You're being very presumptive. How do you know that it's not the exact opposite? Perhaps home owners are more likely to arm themselves and use deadly force because criminals are more likely to be armed. Do you think criminals are making a decision on whether or not to arm themselves or hurt the home owners on the basis of whether or not the home owners might be armed? What about cases where the intention of the home invader is to hurt or kill someone? Furthermore you haven't actually countered m…
/r/MensRights23/08/17 07:10 PM
1

Citation please with regards to fatalities during home invasions? I honestly don't know much about the statistics but I think my point stands, if someone is breaking into your home there's no reason to assume the best case scenario with regards to their behavior, you should do whatever you can to protect yourself.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 06:03 PM
1

Why not? Why is the onus on the victim to assume that a criminal breaking into their home isn't going to harm them and to look out for that criminal's well-being? Just saying "no" without explaining your position is kind of immature and unintelligent.
/r/MensRights23/08/17 05:41 PM
1

Depends on the location, not all states have laws against price discrimination like this.
/r/MensRights12/08/17 09:09 PM
11

As a white man, I use our building's mixed race bathroom, but we've had complaints from both sides. I don't care if niggers also use it, but I have several friends that use it that are uncomfortable with with niggers using it. I'm torn between saying mixed race means mixed race dammit and respecting older people that are uncomfortable. I see the points from both sides. Weird how being 'uncomfortable" doesn't mean shit when you are "uncomfortable" with men, but if you were uncomfortable with blac…
/r/MensRights29/07/17 08:05 AM
5

I wonder if she'd stay with you if you insisted on having your hypothetical daughter cut. Just a thought.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 06:15 AM
1

I just saw it again, there were at least 2.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 09:43 PM
–

You realise you're talking to me over multiple threads? Why are you getting so upset? It's just history. I'm perfectly aware that I've been replying to you multiple times, often asking similar questions which you conveniently ignore. Why are you getting so upset? The rallying cry of douchebags everywhere. Why do you think that I'm upset? All I've done is refuted the points you were making and asked for sources. Why are you getting upset? Oh wait...assuming I know how you feel based on a post is …
/r/MensRights24/07/17 08:43 AM
5

Which scene was it? I didn't notice. If I see the film again I'll look for that.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 08:37 AM
–

How so? You seem to be unaware that there are relatively few French soldiers depicted in the film. In other words I don't think you actually saw the film and you're talking out of your ass. Surely you have a source that black French soldiers were deployed at Dunkirk if you were being honest...
/r/MensRights24/07/17 08:34 AM
1

So in other words, you have no source that black French soldiers were deployed at Dunkirk, but feel that of the dozen or so French soldiers shown in the film, some should be black? Why don't you actually respond to what I asked? I don't care what the original guy you replied to said, but he never actually denied that there were black troops either, he asked for a source and you got indignant, which is suspicious. Considering that you are clearly pushing an agenda here and participating in bad fa…
/r/MensRights24/07/17 08:26 AM
–

I feel like you never saw the film and are just pushing an agenda. You see maybe a dozen French soldiers in the whole film, and we don't even know if all of them were white, were any black or mixed regiments even deployed at Dunkirk?
/r/MensRights24/07/17 08:02 AM
10

The reason I brought up French Algerian soldiers is because they took part in the Battle of Dunkirk, I'm asking about a source showing that the divisions you were talking about were present there. Nobody is denying that there were black French troops, but you only see a few dozen French troops in the whole movie, and they are all part of the French rear guard defending the perimeter at Dunkirk.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 07:58 AM
2

Do you have any sources on this?
/r/MensRights24/07/17 07:41 AM
–

What's even more ridiculous about that opinion is that the movie did pay a realistic and touching tribute to women who contributed to the Dunkirk evacuation, either by working on the evacuation ships or by contributing their private vessels to the cause.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 07:31 AM
–

He might be thinking of French Algerian soldiers deployed at Dunkirk, except they were largely French immigrants to Algeria who were recruited to fight, not people native to north Africa.
/r/MensRights24/07/17 07:29 AM
2

Reason #143 to use an adblocker: websites don't curate their advertising
/r/MensRights17/07/17 07:25 AM
9

and uncut dick is way less hygienic and harbors a ton of bacteria It's unhygienic if you don't shower frequently...are you suggesting that we circumcise babies because you and everyone you know are unhygienic and don't shower enough? Or do you mean something else? This statement is disingenuous. Furthermore a statement like this just shows that you have a serious misunderstanding of human biology. EVERY human tissue harbors bacteria, and this EXACT SAME ARGUMENT was used to justify FGM, in the U…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 11:28 PM
3

but he literally said circumsized men getting it done to their kids is wrong OMG the horror and them holding their circumsized penises are sad and disgusting It was figurative language. It is sad and disgusting when someone forces their child to be mutilated in service of their own ego, which is exactly what someone is doing when they say "well my penis is fine, so I'm going to have my kid circumcised anyways." It was a pretty rude comment towards men who have gotten it done as an adult, our bab…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 09:38 PM
12

Legitimate cases of medically necessary circumcision are so rare that it's not even worth using as a point of support for the practice, and routine prophylactic removal of tissue to prevent extremely rare complications is unjustified medically in every other instance. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the purported "medical benefits" of circumcision are dubious at best, nonsensical on average, and in some cases outright misleading. They were created as a justification to continue the practi…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 09:25 PM
5

I know all about those branches, it's a great concept and I appreciate what they do, but this revelation didn't just reveal to me that this particular practice in Judaism was unethical, it revealed to me that religion in general was not something for me.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 08:53 PM
3

Thanks for the link, that guy's presentation is incredibly concise.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:58 PM
–

Well circumcision does reduce transmission rates for some diseases, but insignificantly, and it's still a ridiculous argument in support of circumcision because we have much more effective ways of preventing the spread of these diseases, like condoms. Not to mention the danger of convincing uneducated people that circumcision makes sex "safer," because now you have a bunch of people who aren't actually protected from spreading STIs that think they are and will pursue unprotected sex.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:23 PM
6

but I don't think people need to be this angry and talking down to people whom are circumsized. We are talking down to people who defend infant circumcision with asinine points like "my boyfriend had it done as an adult and is ok with it." We are not talking down to people because they are circumcised. We will happily talk about how circumcision makes your penis worse, from a purely anatomical perspective, but if someone refuses to get on board with the anti-circ movement because they can't hand…
/r/MensRights02/07/17 07:16 PM
5

You could try actually responding to the point I made, instead of floundering around like an idiot. Is saying "you have a good point" that hard? That's the same fragile ego you're protecting by not condemning circumcision. Because you just compared circumcision to ear piercing. You're either disingenuous, or ridiculously misinformed.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:52 PM
–

As of now, a combination of denial from victims of circumcision, and a push from doctor advocacy groups to prop up the legitimacy of the procedure because it is profitable. There's also a push by religious groups (Jewish and Muslim) to protect it under the guise of religious freedom. The BIGGEST obstacle to making this procedure illegal is circumcised men in denial who protect the procedure in service of their fragile egos.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:48 PM
–

I've never heard of a child dying from complications from an ear piercing. It's almost like they are vastly different in terms of invasiveness and trauma to healthy tissue.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:44 PM
–

It's one of the reasons I abandoned Judaism. I started questioning the practice of circumcision and was met with vitriol. Judaism, the religion that prides itself on teaching people you ask questions, suddenly was not ok with questions about whether or not defending Israel should be as one- sided as they make it, or whether circumcision is ethical. It was easy to see the bullshit for what it was after that.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:40 PM
12

How does your boyfriend having it done as an adult have any bearing on a discussion about forcing cosmetic surgery on infants? That's like pointing out how you got a tattoo as an adult and you're doing fine...great for you, but that doesn't make tattooing babies ok. Also if circumcision made your boyfriend "cleaner" he must have terrible hygiene in the first place, that's kind of embarrassing.
/r/MensRights02/07/17 06:36 PM
13

Wait... why do you want babies to have attractive penises? Fucking pedophiles man...
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:35 PM
11

How can you know? You've never been an uncircumcised adult, you've never experienced any issues as an uncircumcised person that circumcision fixed. Not to mention that whether or not you are individually ok with it has no bearing on the argument that it's not acceptable to do cosmetic surgery on infants.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:29 PM
–

So you are totally cool with FGM?
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:25 PM
5

We should surgically remove people's ears and fingernails, less to clean right?
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:24 PM
–

Pro: this is an elective procedure that the hospital can bill for to make more money Pro: the hospital can sell the excised tissue to the cosmetics industry for additional profit
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:21 PM
8

Another uninformed person that has bought into the idea that all FGM is clitoral excision and infibulation, and all MGM is harmless. Most forms of FGM are actually less severe than circumcision, and people do die from it.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:16 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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