TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

praxulus Archive

View 0 posts and 41 comments by praxulus 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

For something to be a lie it just needs to not be 100% true. You're thinking of "false," which is a category of statements much broader than those that are called "lies." False statements are often made from ignorance rather than malice, and only the latter category are normally deemed "lies."
/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:04 AM
2

That's not even remotely true. Of the first 15 on that list that celebrate individuals, 13 were for men. The only other gendered ones in that time were international girls' day and women's day. 13-4 is most certainly primarily male. Stop living in some kind of fantasy world and get back objective reality.
/r/MensRights10/03/15 12:23 AM
1

If these facts were accurate for some reason, why do you think that they show what they do? Because society treats boys and girls differently. They could be absolutely identical at birth, but it's perfectly understandable for people who are raised differently to behave differently.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:03 AM
1

Are you claiming to know that if the statistics could be accurately measured, we would find that the rates are equal? Or are you just saying we don't know, and should therefore go with the often correct assumption of equality? I don't know what the true rates are, so my position is that I don't know who does it more, if either. I used to believe the statistics were true, but if they're literally all wrong then I have no basis upon which to form an opinion.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 08:07 AM
1

It's impossible to get accurate statistics and I'm sure that men and women are equally likely don't seem to be compatible statements. How are you so sure of your position if accurate statistics don't exist? Have they found some other way to measure it?
/r/MensRights30/11/14 11:53 PM
10

If their movement is genuinely about equality for humans, and they have a large supply of supporters and resources, does it really matter what it's called? Throwing a fit over the name is just as bad as worrying about the "trivial BS" mentioned in the article.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 09:30 AM
2

Employers are allowed to run criminal background checks before hiring, to protect both the company and your fellow employees. College students often spend even more time in close quarters with one another than coworkers do, shouldn't private universities be able to exercise the same precautions as private employers? Of course, crimes you are accused but not convicted of aren't supposed to follow you around, but I'm taking about actual convictions.
/r/MensRights05/10/14 08:42 PM
4

Most actual rape cases don't have enough evidence to convict, because it very often boils down to he said vs she said. I'm pretty skeptical that a lack of a guilty verdict is that highly correlated with a maliciously fabricated accusation.
/r/MensRights17/08/14 05:02 AM
4

Can you point to a page that says it's legal to comment on reddit? Didn't think so.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 11:28 PM
3

You're joking right? There's a difference between being influenced by something and having it completely define your morals and life goals.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 06:06 PM
1

Google's entire revenue stream is based on advertising. If anybody is going to believe that the media can influence people, it's going to be a massive advertising company.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 06:00 PM
1

I don't agree that she's guiltless here mind you. You should finish reading the comment before you reply.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 11:30 PM
2

Is it not possible to get more people to learn by making it more convenient to learn? That is, wanting to learn vs not wanting to learn isn't a binary trait, but rather there's a spectrum of how much effort people are willing to exert to increase their knowledge. Putting everybody in a class won't help the people with an extremely low willingness, but people in the middle who wouldn't have sought out the information on their own might learn if they get it nicely cut up into bite-sized pieces and…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 10:14 PM
1

You can't teach people who don't want to learn. I disagree with that based on my childhood of being raised by Asian parents, but I agree with your overall point. Obviously not everybody will retain all the knowledge they were supposed to obtain from their 13+ years of school. Still, I believe trying to get everyone to learn more (e.g. whether or not you inherit your diseased relative's debts) would be well worth the investment.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:15 AM
3

I guess we just have very different outlooks on the way society should function. Personal responsibility is great, but I think it's just a tool for achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people, rather than a worthy goal by itself. I also think it becomes a much stronger tool when we give everybody a proper education whether they want it or not.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:03 AM
12

Then a solid 75%1 of the population are numbskulls. People don't know how the law works, at all. Even if you think they should know, the fact is that they don't, and letting them suffer because of that is pretty cold. 1 Source: my ass
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:55 AM
-1

He always has the option of dropping the class. I don't see how he's being forced to do anything.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:52 AM
7

Or just misinformed. You should browse /new on /r/personalfinance sometime.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 01:45 AM
5

I've already heard stories of kids from straight couples who have a different gender identity. It's just a thing that happens, I doubt it occurred solely because of his parents' sexuality. Something like that is less likely to be repressed in more liberal household, so you might hear about it more, but that doesn't mean it happened because of the parents.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:35 AM
-1

There's a feedback loop. Because men are currently over-represented in technical fields, there's an abundance of male role models and media depictions that encourage boys and young men to get into technical fields. While it's possible that men are inherently better at technical subjects than women, the fact that there are more men in technical fields is certainly not sufficient evidence of such a disparity.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:12 PM
1

Throughout the programming and broader tech community (this was at a convention for a popular programming language, after all).
/r/MensRights21/03/13 12:25 PM
10

Perhaps that decision was simply "let's use our biggest and strongest fighters against the Germans," (who happened to be mostly male) rather than "we have to protect the women!"
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:40 PM
3

So your solution to high suicide rates is "use a method that won't kill you."
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:38 PM
4

There are often different physical requirements for men and women. That's what it has to do with men and women.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 06:20 AM
3

Because males make more testosterone, which makes for bigger, stronger muscles. It would be an incredible coincidence if such a stark difference existed with no selective pressure for it.
/r/MensRights20/02/13 11:23 PM
1

Really? It's widely considered political suicide to actually have a draft, so getting rid of the selective service system altogether doesn't seem that far fetched.
/r/MensRights19/02/13 06:30 AM
12

He was suspended, which is a far cry from jailed. Facts are facts, don't undermine your point by exaggerating the truth.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 02:20 AM
1

I don't actually know if that's how alimony laws work, I'm just saying alimony is a reasonable concept if you have restrictions like that. Now that I think about it, t existing alimony laws probably aren't very reasonable.....
/r/MensRights21/12/12 10:44 PM
1

If you get a divorce because your wife decides she doesn't want to work, I would imagine that alimony gets calculated based on what she was making before she quit her job. If you decide you want her to go back to work after she's been at home for 5 years, then you're probably screwed.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:08 PM
1

I find it hard to believe that it was solely the stay-at-home husband/wife's decision to suspend their career. Yes, it was a choice, but the working partner almost certainly still had a say in the matter. The choice was also made under the assumption that they would be supported financially for the rest of their life. If you signed a prenuptial agreement saying otherwise, that's another matter, but you have to establish the fact that financial support is not indefinite before somebody sacrifices…
/r/MensRights21/12/12 12:56 PM
31

Pretty sure the guest wasn't a feminist, she was just a bitch.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 08:08 PM
4

That doesn't change the fact that the shepherds are heard the most.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 10:55 PM
2

Hmm, perhaps I was reading my own ideas into the OP, if not you're correct in saying it could have been clearer. And I most certainly agree that it is a part of the problem, if not one of the main problems in the quest for gender equality. Not only are women at a disadvantage simply because of tradition, but efforts to balance the playing field will inevitably hurt some men disproportionately, and not help some women enough, making society unfair across some other axis.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 10:38 AM
0

No, the point they were trying to make wasn't "men accomplished all the good in the world, so you should also forgive all the bad." The point was that for most of history men have been significantly more prominent in the public sphere, so it's perfectly normal for most of the evil to be attributed to men. As evidence of this, it is also the case that they are responsible for a greater portion of famous achievements that benefited mankind.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 09:08 AM
3

Lol, cheeky
/r/MensRights02/02/11 03:32 AM
2

Exactly, that's why you need to hit it. Give it a nice beating.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 11:05 PM
-2

I'm sure plenty of women hit their male partners, but that 70% does exclude cases where when a woman hits a man and he doesn't flinch (cases where the woman is too weak to land a real punch/the man is a badass), correct? If not, it's a little misleading.
/r/MensRights04/01/11 07:10 AM
6

Wang Wisdom
/r/MensRights02/01/11 06:20 AM
2

The only statistical effect lowering my rate would be people who get repeatedly attacked, but because the original rate is so low, it makes little difference: 1- (.99575) =1 - 0.686 = 0.313, so a woman has an overall chance of a little less than a third of getting raped some time in their life. The fact that women of different ages have different chances of getting raped actually increases this probability, so it's a lower bound. Now, please let me know where I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 06:37 PM
3

They're married though, I would have no expectation of privacy from my wife.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 07:17 PM
-2

Remember: Over the course of a 75 year lifespan this means 375 of 1000, more than 1 in 3, women will be raped or sexually assaulted at some point.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 07:12 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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