TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

robdouth Archive

View 0 posts and 46 comments by robdouth 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)
2

I get that they have some authors with somewhat clickbaity titles, but what have the done to lose credibility?
/r/MensRights29/03/19 05:49 PM
6

That's still not proof though that the crime happened, as someone said above, she could just be lying for street cred. I can admit to shooting JFK, but that doesn't mean they'd convict me of it just because I admitted it.
/r/MensRights29/03/19 05:47 PM
3

Your last paragraph is the exact reason for the article though. We all know that if there was proof of what she did, she'd be in jail or charged, but since all she did was admit it to an interviewer, the question is then asked, should something be done. Should there be an investigation? Should it be treated as a lie made up to make her seem like a Bad B? The article is talking about consequences in a broader sense also. Not just legal, but given the era of MeToo, should the same consequences to …
/r/MensRights29/03/19 05:45 PM
1

No I'm clear on both the measurement and the rate itself. People round up to half of all marriages even though it's 30ish%. They also fail to disclose that if your getting married for the first time the success rate is north of 75-80%. Again be honest and transparent first then give your opinion is my motto. None of this negates the problems structurally with family court and the law as it treats divorce, but the argument is more compelling IMO of you are completely honest and transparent and th…
/r/MensRights31/01/19 04:10 AM
1

It's both. Am I not able to make both arguments concurrently?
/r/MensRights31/01/19 04:06 AM
2

I agree because the current imbalance isn't good for marriage
/r/MensRights31/01/19 04:06 AM
2

My argument is both. But for people who are not married and never have been married, presenting the overall marriage statistic is misleading. Telling that guy 50% of all marriages end in divorce to spook him when the fact is that if he gets married he probably has more like an 80% chance matters. Then tell him about how stacked family court is against his rights should he divorce by all means. However, tell the truth as transparently as possible first, then give your opinion.
/r/MensRights31/01/19 12:20 AM
7

I won't argue with you on the cost benefit ratio because that's always going to be different for each person and you are correct, that even on 1 in 5 odds, do you want to play Russian roulette with a 5 shot revolver? There are a myriad of benefits to marriage for children and for men if it's a happy marriage. I'm blessed with that and unless one of us dies, I will be blessed with that until death. I know you could say "how can you possibly know that" and I can't for sure obviously, but I have de…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 08:36 PM
0

Actually if someone doesn't get married, that has no effect on divorce rates as it's neither part of the numerator or denominator. I'm not even advocating for marriage per se. If you don't get married, it's probably for good reasons, and the fact that people who most likely shouldn't be getting married are not, will only further increase the percentage of successful marriages over time. I don't want to scare people with misleading stats, but I'm definitely not saying jump in the water without te…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 08:32 PM
1

Because for that one person who gets married 5 times and divorced 5 times, 5 other couples remained married in order to get to that 50% numbers. Therefore it's misleading to say 50% of marriages end in divorce when it's 75-80% of first marriages and then a much worse ratio for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th. So scaring someone young with those numbers is misleading because even at it's peak it wasn't 50% ending in divorce. It peaked in the 80's at 40ish% and is down around 30% of all marriages, and a much l…
/r/MensRights30/01/19 08:30 PM
4

Most marriages will end in divorce That's increasingly not as true anymore. The divorce rate peaked in the 80's and 90's and has been declining. In terms of first marriages, far more than half stay together, but if someone gets married and divorced 5 times then it can skew the numbers. Furthermore the stats change if you factor in education level, race/culture etc. Saying it's a 50/50 proposition is highly misleading. If it's your first marriage you probably have closer to a 75-80% chance of it …
/r/MensRights30/01/19 05:41 PM
1

But given it's actually 60% of 2nd marriages fail and even more after that (75% of 3rd or more), it's not how it actually works in real life. Yes 50% of all marriages at every stage can lead to 50% overall, but that's not how it is in the real world. it's 70% or more of first marriages stay together and given 60% of 2nd marriages are ending in divorce and more after that, then in order to keep it at the 42-45% it is in actuality, it means 7 of 10 or more 1st marriages are staying together for th…
/r/MensRights07/11/18 10:37 PM
0

Not for the purposes of counting divorce rates. You really don't understand the math. If someone is on their 2nd marriage, they already have one that failed due to divorce, so you can't use their 2nd marriage against my uncle's 5 in this case, because it only offsets their failed marriage in a situation where 50% end in divorce. If you say it doesn't matter which marriage it is, you are also counting the first marriage which failed. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand th…
/r/MensRights07/11/18 09:19 PM
0

That's exactly what the data shows. Can you not understand the links I provided? The vast majority of first marriages stay together. After a peak of divorces (from a % standpoint) in the 70s/80s it's moving towards about 70-75% of first marriages stay together and don't end in divorce. 2nd marriages end in divorce about 60% of the time. Anything after that gets higher as well. If you can't acknowledge basic facts, how can you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously?
/r/MensRights07/11/18 07:47 PM
1

BTW, if it's someone on their 2nd marriage, then they are only counteracting their first failed marriage. If what you were saying was true, and 4 of the couples were first marriage, and 1 was second marriage for each person, then you take my uncle with his 5 failed marriages, then you wouldn't be at 50%. You had 11 total marriages and 6 failed, so unless everyone was perfectly 50% which we know isn't the case more 1st marriages have to stay together to counteract multiple failed marriages to kee…
/r/MensRights07/11/18 07:43 PM
0

It doesn't matter if they are on their first 2nd or 3rd, 5 marriages have to stay together for someone who is divorced 5 times. That's the point, and given that 70+% of first marriages stay together and it's people on subsequent marriages that are getting divorced at higher rates, then my logic is actually what's happening. More 1st marriages are staying together to counteract how many 2nd and 3rd marriages are getting divorced. It's not just the correct logic, it's exactly what's happening.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 07:22 PM
0

Also, my point about for someone divorced multiple times, multiple couples have to stay married is completely accurate even if you can't figure it out. If I stay married to my wife, and you to yours, and 3 other people stayed married, and my uncle has been married and divorced 5 times, then of those 10 marriages the divorce rate is 50%, because 5 couples stayed together and five other marriages ended in divorce. I don't see how you can't see that.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 03:59 PM
1

I think you are assuming the only way you can get to 50% if it's 50% of all, but if, as the facts are, 70% of first marriages stay together, but 60% of 2nd marriages end in divorce and the number gets higher with subsequent marriages, then you can even out at 50% of all. My logic isn't flawed, you are just looking at the math far too narrowly. In fact the myth of the 50% divorce rate was because of logic like yours and ignoring the correct logic I use where you break it out between first/second/…
/r/MensRights07/11/18 03:57 PM
0

Thats not true. 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce meaning for one person divorced multiple times someone multiple couples stay married, or they would say 60 or 70 % end in divorce
/r/MensRights07/11/18 03:09 PM
0

Says who? Really? If only half of marriages end in divorce, and given the number of people who are married multiple times, it means that well over half of first marriages do not end in divorce. I have an uncle that has been married and divorced 5 times, which means for a ~50% marriage survival rate, me and 4 other couples have to stay together until death. Which means the majority of people who get married for the first time, stay that way, meaning they aren't legally obliterated. It's simple ma…
/r/MensRights06/11/18 10:08 PM
1

Yeah I seem to be in a discussion with one. I don't want women to have disproportional power in the familial courts, but I'm not redpilling over it.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 09:53 PM
-1

You are really good at using highly suspect analogies. The vast majority of people don't get legally obliterated by marriage. I'm saying that I have a great marriage, so it would be disingenuous for me to say marriage is a bad option, but I also am admitting that clearly not everyone has my situation, which is why you should be damn sure. I don't understand why you have to twist these argument with piss poor analogies. You said yourself you are married. Can you not provide any good reasons to ge…
/r/MensRights06/11/18 06:16 PM
1

The US should never trust the UK or vice versa that much in your scenario, but the analogy while good is not perfect, so I'm not all in on the nuclear weapons synonymous with marriage issue. If you can't or don't think a woman should ever be trusted that much, then by all means, but the greatest things in my life are a result of the trust I placed in my wife, so I can't honestly advocate against marriage per se, just warn other men that they should be damn sure before they jump in (my wife and I…
/r/MensRights06/11/18 05:13 PM
1

I don't blame men who can't trust someone enough to make that commitment. God forbid if anything happened to my wife, I doubt I could find someone else. But she and I dated since we were 17 and 15, dated for 7 years, and have been married over a decade. We literally grew up together, and I can't imagine ever trusting another woman on that level if the unthinkable happened. Also, when Chesterton said that it was a completely different time for marriage.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 05:01 PM
8

This is a fair point, I'm blessed to have a loving and reasonable wife who gets angrier than I do when she hears about men being screwed over by their exes. She says she can't talk about her marriage with her co-workers because they'd look at her like she has a second head if she said good things about me. It's not because I'm an overly great guy (I try my best) but because she's not inundated with the mindset that guys are shit, so she appreciates me for what I actually am, not some caricature …
/r/MensRights06/11/18 03:15 PM
4

Why would you get downvoted for getting married? As chesterton said, marriage is a duel to the death that no man of honour should decline.
/r/MensRights06/11/18 04:31 AM
0

You are getting feudalism answers below, but I think the easiest answers is the simple and most likely answer. Some men in power thought it would be good to hold men accountable for their actions. It sounds good in theory, but theory doesn't always seamlessly roll into practice. While writing the laws, they end up written in a way that sounds like a good idea to some until you run up against these examples. What's mind blowing to me is that the court upholds these things. I expect politicians to…
/r/MensRights19/09/18 04:55 PM
1

People wonder why gay men have higher earning power...
/r/MGTOW20/12/17 06:37 PM
1

Edit: had to put in this first part because I didn't realize you literally don't know the law There is no law keeping the victims name secret. This is just absolutely not true, they are called Rape shield laws. Original comment: But if such a law was passed, you are arguing it would be detrimental to the first amendment, even though similar protections are already afforded legally to the accuser. The problem is that you either look ignorant or like a hypocrite because this legal protection alrea…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:29 PM
1

But it happens much more efficiently and electronically now. It can happen instantaneously.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:36 PM
2

The same way you are currently able to keep the alleged victims name secret and it has yet to destroy the First Amendment. Are you actually claiming that protecting the name of the alleged victim is fine, but the accuser being protected from a potential witch hunt would destroy the 1st amendment somehow?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:34 PM
5

Actually before they even sniffed the inside of the court the media had tried and convicted them. Printed the fake details of the "alleged" assault, and the DA went on a public tour telling everyone how he was going to get justice for the accused (which implies he already knew how the case was going to play out potentially. The DA and media ignored clear evidence of specific players innocence. But since it's really hard to get any kind of win in libel or slander suits, it was all "legal" though …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:33 PM
2

"Suspect A assaults Victim 1 tonight at 8. " Allegedly, don't forget allegedly assaults.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:27 PM
2

It reduces prostate cancer risk but increases likelihood of impaired vision...
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:34 PM
4

We've definitely reached a point where the pendulum is at an apex on one side. I'd rather see it stop in the middle than continue to swing back and forth, because it's just a trail of broken people as a result.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 05:10 PM
12

From what I saw working with the DPS at a major university in Arizona, there are a number of reasons that can drive that. It could be parents like this example, it could be that a boyfriend caught the GF, so she then says the guy forced himself on her while she was drinking. The problem now though is that the college administrators have decided that men will specifically have less rights on a college campus.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 05:00 PM
4

I agree with that. We have two conflicting ideas that aren't wrong in and of themselves, but have a distorting effect on justice. You have victim's rights groups who want to make it easier for true victims to come forward and be protected, however, the accusations they make are far to damaging to just be accepted with little to no analysis. We all want rapists brought to justice, but we don't want to see situations where the Duke Lacrosse case is happening every other day because the law goes ou…
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:30 PM
1

I'm sorry, I couldn't tell. My bad. Context is hard to discern on the interwebs.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:13 PM
2

I agree with that statement, but that's not how it is. I thought we were talking about what actually happens in the criminal justice system, not what ought to be. I agree with you, but "victim's rights groups" which are really only rape accuser rights groups because they don't care about the man's rights, would be angry if it became harder to convict someone of rape. I understand the argument, because a lot of men are not convicted of rapes they have committed, but our justice system has to err …
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:11 PM
1

actually the brutality of the murder absolutely matters for sentencing. It actually can heavily influence what type of murder it is. If you are claiming it's not pre-meditated, but it involves a serious amount of drawn out suffering, you can no longer claim heat of the moment. It would affecting both what the charges are and what the sentence should be. Someone who tortures someone to death over a 24 hour period should get a different sentence than someone who just shoots someone in the head.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:04 PM
3

The sex occurred, so then it's just a judge and jury hearing both people's sides and trying to make a judgment call. If you have a very convincing and sociopathic liar, then people are likely to believe one side over the other.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:02 PM
43

But that's because the argument is emotional. If you present facts, it will turn personal and emotional. What, you support men raping a woman who's passed out drunk? Strawmen and shifting goalposts have to be used to make it seem like you support all manner of abuse instead of sticking to a narrow conversation about ensuring rights of both parties to the act.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 04:00 PM
4

And importantly, there are no controls that assure the mother is spending that money for the benefit of the child.
/r/MensRights09/10/17 03:56 PM
2

Isn't that the point of categorizing it though because it has splintered. Their are new wave feminists and different generations of feminism that hold slightly different core values. I don't know enough to speak intelligently about the variants, but I thought there were differences.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:47 PM
2

But who is going to clarify. If the only thing you see and hear in the media is the strident extremes, then they are over-represented. Who is responsible for setting the record straight. Are Catholics answerable to the violations by their priests? Do they need to roundly condemn them? Muslims for Islamic terrorism? Republicans and the President need to condemn the white supremacy from Charlottesville? Police officers as a whole vs. bad cops caught doing wrong? I get that these are not all perfec…
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:28 PM
4

There is judging it by it's most extreme, and judging it by it's most visible and active. Fair or not, if that person is given the microphone and the platform and no one comes out to rebut them from that side, it becomes easy to understand why people will think that is the view.
/r/MensRights16/08/17 07:02 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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