TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

s73v3r Archive

View 0 posts and 377 comments by s73v3r 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

That's just plain harassment
/r/PussyPassDenied07/08/17 05:18 AM
0

It is extremely irrelevant as it has absolutely no bearing on what happened. It excuses no one.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 05:05 PM
1

You're pointing out something extremely pedantic, and completely irrelevant to the actual points being made.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:58 PM
0

The entire #GamerGate thing has gotten out of control. While it may have started with decent intentions, it looks like now it is nothing more than an attempt to focus the internet hate machine on people. Behavior like that should not be acceptable in civilized society.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:55 PM
1

So you think it's perfectly alright to crucify someone based on an allegation alone. You must be all for false rape allegations, then.
/r/MensRights22/08/14 01:02 AM
0

That's his problem, not mine. Until he does, however, we have absolutely no hard evidence that she did, or that she did it with the people he claims, which would lead to other issues.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 01:15 AM
-1

It's never the business of the public. The rare exception might be the infidelity of someone who is in charge of high military secrets. That's it. And the boyfriend is only accusing her of this. As far as I can see, no hard evidence has been provided.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 08:16 PM
1

The thing is she admitted to a lot of it People have been saying that, but where is this admission? its not just what one guy said. He presented a lot of evidence. Has any of it been independently verified? I can't exactly consider an ex to be the most unbiased of sources.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:45 PM
0

This guy wrote a blog post about what she had done on a personal blog. Which happened to be made public, and circulated around several media outlets. One is basic freedom of speech and the other is a crime. There's freedom of speech. There's also a responsibility to not be a dick with your freedom of speech.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:38 PM
0

Infidelity is an issue between the people involved. By itself, it's none of our business.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 05:32 PM
-4

It's not really relevant to men's rights in the least.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 07:22 AM
3

If they would turn you down based on gender is that a company you really want to work for? This is always the dumbest of dumb arguments. What happens when the majority of companies that are hiring do this? What happens when you've been unemployed for a few months, and need to buy food? This kind of discrimination should always bother people, regardless of the gender involved.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 02:06 AM
-1

So colleges don't exist?
/r/MensRights14/08/14 01:59 AM
2

There's a huge difference between encouraging more people to enter the field, and outright discrimination.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 01:58 AM
2

And many other problems, including the discrimination of women, would greatly increase.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 01:55 AM
12

You've made the fallacy that the market acts on what is right, and that it acts in a timely manner.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 01:51 AM
40

I don't want to be thought of as pro male. I want to be pro everyone.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 03:16 AM
4

The FSM didn't get /r/atheism pulled off the default subreddit list. It's because their subreddit devolved into just a bunch of memes about how horrible people of faith are, instead of any actual discussion of atheism.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:01 PM
10

Yes, they do exist. There is not something magical about hacking/programming that causes one to lose all social skills.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 06:11 PM
2

The Facebook API doesn't give the developers access to how long something like that has been set. I think you can get the age of the account itself, though.
/r/MensRights06/02/14 07:41 AM
3

but I think it's safe to say that the women writing articles about how some dude's abs make them all moist are very likely not the same women writing complaints about boobs in video games, or gratuitous ass shots in Olympic volleyball. Apparently not, as both of these articles were written by the same person.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:57 PM
1

No. It's the same author who is applauding objectification of athletes on one hand, and shaming objectification of athletes on the other.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:57 PM
2

Of course they're going to have a "let's look at sexy Olympic athletes" article. Yeah, but in the same breath the author is raging against those types of articles.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:55 PM
0

I would think that after a short time of actually being objectified, you'd probably change your mind.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:53 PM
2

It is hypocrisy if the editors approved both of them.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 10:48 PM
1

No, it's not.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:10 AM
0

Yes, you did. You've been saying that being suspended from school for "sexual insensitivity" (whatever the fuck that is) is a "learning experience" for when they hit the "real world". The issue, which you have completely glossed over, is that there was no "sexual insensitivity". And to further the injustice, the person accused was not allowed to mount an effective defense. You cannot possibly claim with a straight face that this is any kind of "warning" other than "don't trust any woman, ever, b…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:09 AM
1

Since when is this convention? The student court is corrupt and unjust in this situation. And as I said before, I don't give a flying fuck if no one was "forced" into agreeing to abide by their decision. Just because it was "voluntary" does NOT give them an excuse for being unjust.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:07 AM
0

Not reporting a crime is NOT a free speech activity.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:45 AM
2

I don't give a flying fuck if no one was "forced" to sign the code of conduct. This action is wrong, plain and simple.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:43 AM
1

Your post would have some degree of validity if it wasn't for the fact that almost no evidence is needed to be found guilty under these school proceedings.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 03:42 AM
4

But... but wings don't have breast meat.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 01:00 AM
1

Well, not really. If the man sired the child, they should support it.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:00 AM
-12

I am not advocating it. Yes you are. You have constantly done that whole, "What if ..." bullshit that is a very thinly veiled attempt at advocating violence.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:59 PM
6

This is wrong becuase: You clearly didn't get the point. The point is not that this should happen, rather it's pointing out the absurdity of the idea by flipping it around.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:58 PM
3

The story does state that future payments have been stopped. A judge was able to stop future payments, but was not able to overturn a previous order for child support up til that point. The man had to pay the back child support that he didn't pay while fighting the order. Now he would have to go and get the previous order overturned to not have to pay that.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:02 PM
9

Violations of civil rights?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:00 PM
2

The strap-on article didn't say anything about raping, or non-consensual strap-on sex.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:59 PM
6

He was taken care of. He was well fed, and highly trained. He just wasn't loved by the mother.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:56 PM
6

No, it didn't. And you're forgetting the fact that both are equally necessary for life to happen.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:53 PM
10

You're missing the point: We're talking about reproductive rights and a person's right to choose. Does a man not have the right to choose? If so, then by allowing a woman to choose what sperm is allowed in her womb, and separately choosing which man will support the child, then it should be equally valid for a man to be able to choose which womb he deposits his seed in (with full consent, of course).
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:53 PM
-16

Stop. Just stop. Stop advocating for violence against people because you don't like the outcome of a case.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:50 PM
2

rather than refusing to pay while he still has a right to appeal. That happens all the time, though. A company gets sued, and a large judgement comes out against it. They're not going to pay before appeal.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:48 PM
6

No, it doesn't. All it does is make everyone perpetually afraid, and then nothing gets done. There's also very little stopping your ideology from taking it out on people who don't actually deserve it.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:46 PM
8

The state gets a cut. Plus, it's someone they don't have to support on welfare.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:43 PM
1

So he can change jobs, it'd just be like anyone who has something like a high car payment or a mortgage, in that they'd have to be offered a certain level of pay before it's worthwhile.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:20 PM
1

I made absolutely no comment about whether or not it would be easy. I just took issue with the idea that he was forced to stay in the same job, and couldn't change jobs.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 05:19 PM
1

Why can't he change jobs? That's the point I don't get.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 11:57 PM
0

again, I am speaking of the CORE GAMING sector. One more time: CORE GAMING. That is 90% male. Do you have anything to back this up? I mean, things other than you looking at something you don't like and saying, "That's not CORE GAMING".
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:30 AM
0

Girls do not play core games Plenty of them do.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:29 AM
3

It looked to me like they were just talking in context of that one incident. Not that they were presenting it as only one gender doing the harassing.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:23 AM
3

I'm 90% sure that the people complaining that women in comics and video games are oversexualized are not the ones dressing up as Lara Croft.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 12:18 AM
12

Why can't a woman physically rape a man? Are you saying it's not possible for a woman to have sex with a man against his will or without his consent?
/r/MensRights28/03/13 11:30 PM
1

This leaves the "non-forcible" category for cases where the victim did give consent, but was still forced into it, or unable to give reasonable consent (intoxication, age of consent, etc.). Consent given under coercion is not consent. Contract law recognizes this, too.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 12:26 AM
2

Distinguishing "forcible rape" as different from "other rape" is bad because it takes the "badness" away from non-forcible rape. That, and there are different types of force besides just physical force. For example, I'd say someone that uses date rape drugs would be exerting force on their victim.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 11:55 PM
2

Quit spamming other, unrelated subreddits with your trash.
/r/MensRights07/05/12 08:42 PM
0

That situation sucks, but it is not a justification for violence.
/r/MensRights30/04/12 02:32 AM
1

No, it's an actual thing. They didn't really call themselves "brogrammers" though; that was a term made up to lampoon them. I guess they kinda just took it and owned it.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 05:22 PM
1

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you would think there was anything wrong with it.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 08:16 PM
10

Considering that bars essentially reinforce rape culture No, they don't. Drunk culture, maybe. But not rape culture. when someone can tell me how paying for a girl's drink in attempt to sleep/converse/have time with her isn't essentially using booze to lower her ability to consent, I'll believe that this isn't rape culture It's not because the person is completely free to not accept the booze. No one is forcing you to drink.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 10:45 PM
4

I don't think it would change much because 1). The guys are still going to tell themselves they have a shot, and 2). There are going to be women who decide they want to have sex with someone there. Nothing wrong with it; people enjoy having sex.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 10:41 PM
0

It speaks to the cries for men to "man up" No, it doesn't. Women being allowed to have sex just as freely as men has absolutely nothing to do with that. The "man up" bullshit is a separate issue.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 10:25 PM
1

Tell me, what actual men's rights issue does this article address? What about MEN does it actually address?
/r/MensRights20/03/12 10:24 PM
0

Most of us don't think garbage like this has any place near the MRM. It has absolutely nothing to do with issues men face; it's just an excuse to shit on women. How much do you want to bet this guy is a Republican, or a Rush supporter?
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:01 AM
0

No. I do not accept any of your arguments as valid. I only see them as excuses for why women should be punished for having sex. Further, I do not see any relevance whatsoever between this filth and the actual issues facing the Men's Rights movement.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 11:59 PM
2

I honestly don't think this post, or others like it have any place in any Men's Rights discussion. It has absolutely no relevance, other than to shit on women. And that's not what this community is supposed to be about.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 11:56 PM
1

Good god, that is just an awful, awful stance. Tell me, does male sexuality need to be restrained, too? Slut shaming is an awful, awful practice that only seeks to punish women for having sex. That's it. And it has absolutely no place here among Men's Rights, as it has nothing to do with actual issues men face.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 07:48 PM
2

This is a highly worthless article. And it kinda explains why a lot of people think this subreddit is overly misogynist. Also this line: To protest over someone else’s opinion, is to attempt to silence that person which is anti-free speech and therefore anti-democratic. Is completely and utterly false. One of the awesome things about free speech is a person's ability to use that right to show their displeasure over someone else's statement. This author talks about some lack of "personal responsi…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 06:03 AM
1

Wait, what episode is that from?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:26 AM
14

The worst part is, if you point this out to them, they'll try to say, "We have another subreddit for actual discussion!" Like people will want to go look for that after the treatment you give them?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:25 AM
3

It says in big letter in the sidebar that you're not supposed to downvote the things they link to. And the law (in the US) very clearly says that people are not to smoke marijuana and that people under 21 are not to drink alcohol. And yet, it happens.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:22 AM
1

So you want to fix the problem with silencing other's opinions... by silencing others?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:21 AM
19

Honestly, I'd prefer this reason to the others.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:21 AM
1

And the bans are to keep out derailing And by derailing, you mean from people who point out that you're huge hypocrites, and engage in the same shit that you claim to hate. For those not doiing so, the sidebar very clearly states that it's a circlejerk for our own amusement as minorities who are sick of taking shit. Either you join in, or are banned, there are separate places such as r/SRSDiscussion if you care to engage a debate. So why should anyone take you seriously again?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:14 AM
2

I guess my one criticism of SRS is that it seems to fly in the face of "the streisand effect." Calling attention to something bad that you dont want people to see usually just makes more people see it and makes everything worse. [This is taking SRS somewhat seriously, so take the whole post with a huge grain of salt.] The question is, what is your purpose? Do you want no one to see the racist/sexist/whatever-ist stuff? Then I agree, pointing it out is the wrong thing to do. However, if you want …
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:10 AM
1

we chose to not ignore all of the bigoted, creepy, misogynistic, transphobic, unsettling, racist, and homophobic things we see. And so you take the stuff that you feel is bad, and then do the exact same shit back to others. And that makes things better how?
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:08 AM
1

I guess my question is, are there people in SRS who legitimately take offense to things, or are they just people squawking for attention? A little from column A, a little from column B. Also, please don't send them to any programming related subreddits. I like actually discussing things in those.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:07 AM
7

To be fair, some of the drama is caused by people in here, too. I don't like to admit it, but there is a chunk of overly misogynistic users in this subreddit. They are usually downvoted/rebuked fairly quickly, but they're still there.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:05 AM
1

I think I might have figured out why everyone says that you post everywhere.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 12:59 AM
3

No, you weren't. And saying you were is insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads your comment, just like you were insulting the mod's intelligence.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 12:57 AM
3

You said "men don't say no to sex. women do.". That is construed as saying that men can't say no to sex.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 05:52 PM
4

Are you kidding me? Are you saying you can't say no to sex? Ever? Or you just didn't want to?
/r/MensRights08/03/12 06:55 PM
-3

That really doesn't mean anything.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:53 PM
3

Are you saying you can't say no to sex?
/r/MensRights07/03/12 06:43 PM
2

Yes, people generally think of lots of things they do, including having sex, to be far more important than they really are.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:38 AM
4

For almost everyone, there is someone out there who is willing to have sex with them.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:28 AM
9

I really don't get this "Gatekeeper of Sex" part. Both participants can equally say yes or no.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 02:26 AM
1

It's in the same class as religious beliefs. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism compared to any religion in this regard.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 12:15 AM
-1

And you seem like a smug asshole.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 09:48 PM
1

Fine. I don't care. Don't have atheism be a protected class, because you're too fucking smug to admit that they are close enough for this purpose.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 09:48 PM
0

You mean the explanation of how I'm right? How, for the purposes of determining a "protected class", atheism would fall right beside Christianity, Judaism, and all the other religions, because it does concern the holding of, or lack of, religious belief?
/r/MensRights23/02/12 07:06 PM
-1

Who the fuck cares? For the purposes of being a "protected class" under Federal Law, Atheism would be absolutely no different than any other religion. Any other debate about the topic is absolutely pointless, and is only you circlejerking to try and make yourself seem special, and better than those dirty "believers".
/r/MensRights23/02/12 07:05 PM
-1

Shut the fuck up. Seriously, that arrogant line is probably the most retarded thing I have ever read. For the purposes of protection under the law, they are close enough to be considered the same. I know it hurts you to be lumped into the same category as those dirty plebeians who actually believe in religion, but you're gonna have to suck it up. You are NOT SPECIAL because you are an atheist. There is absolutely nothing special about atheism compared to any religion out there, and pretending th…
/r/MensRights23/02/12 06:49 PM
0

It still falls under the category of belief (or non-belief) in religion.
/r/MensRights23/02/12 02:15 AM
0

Technically it would fall under religion being a protected class.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 09:03 PM
2

Did you tell her how you felt? Have you actually tried to say something to HR? Or are you making a big assumption about things?
/r/MensRights22/02/12 09:02 PM
0

With every sentence, the older man sitting next to me, who'd I'd never met before, would touch me, often with his hand on my thigh, and say something like, "That's right. We know how bad that can be. Right, honey?" Yo dawg, I heard you liked sexual harassment, so I put some harassment in your harassment lecture?
/r/MensRights22/02/12 09:01 PM
1

You could complain to the Admins. I would imagine stuff like r/jailbait was far higher publicized, so it was the one that came to mind. I highly doubt they had someone going through every single subreddit in existence and seeing whether it involved child sexualization.
/r/MensRights17/02/12 07:43 PM
1

No, it's your assertion. Unless you back it up, it is not fact. And not everyone hangs out here all the time.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 08:55 PM
1

Good for you. Maybe next time you'll take that 10 seconds and post the links with your assertion, instead of being lazy yourself and relying on your reader to do your work for you.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:50 PM
1

So you're saying that only the rich should be able to pursue the course of study they want.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:49 PM
1

Was that so hard? Do you really believe you don't have to back up what you say?
/r/MensRights14/02/12 02:28 AM
1

And I prefer to turn fuckheads like you into object lessons, since you're universally too racist and sexist to consider anything but your own fucked up beliefs. As opposed to your fucked up beliefs, which I should apparently just accept on blind faith. Imagine how stupid you'll feel when you see how easy it is to find this info. Imagine how stupid you look to those who can type a sentence into Google, and have done so. I don't care how easy it is to Google. You made the assertion, it's up to you…
/r/MensRights14/02/12 02:27 AM
1

Then don't expect anyone to take you seriously. YOU are the one making the assertion, the onus is on YOU to back it up.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 12:17 AM
1

I have to agree with her. But then, I really like making beer.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:25 PM
2

Check the username. It's a pretty bad novelty account.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:25 PM
4

If that's true, then you should be able to cite it.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:23 PM
2

Because you're saying that only the rich should be able to pursue what they want.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:19 PM
6

Well, given the performance of many CEOs as of late, you can't really blame them for not thinking that there is any kind of meritocracy in place.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:16 PM
0

Definitely do check, but if you're in public, isn't it legal, as one doesn't have a right to privacy in public?
/r/MensRights12/12/11 07:00 PM
1

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that someone else has to be worthy of you Neither do I. I do think it's extremely unreasonable to not be willing to do things for your partner to make you worthy of them.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 10:07 PM
0

That's still not a forward thinking mindset So fucking what?
/r/MensRights11/11/11 09:06 PM
1

That all determines if you think something like this is necessarily a "wrong". I don't think having a girl's night out is any more wrong than having a guy's night out. What would cause something to be wrong is if one was allowed while the other one not.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 09:06 PM
1

I'm saying that simply saying you accept Jesus as lord and savior isn't the same as actually doing it.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:27 AM
1

No, it's not. Not if you truly want to repent, and change your life.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:27 AM
1

I think you'd know it by the attitude of the person. Someone who sins is probably going to be more genuinely repentant than someone who lives a sinful lifestyle. Additionally, it's really not something for people themselves to judge. It's really something that's between the person and their god.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:26 AM
4

As long as no one gets pissed off when someone decides to do a guy's night out, I don't see a problem with it.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 12:08 AM
7

Huh? If you're referring to his right to speech, then you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, everyone calling him a dumbass is joining with him in exercising their right to speech in calling him a dumbass.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 02:30 AM
2

Depends. Catholics still believe in deeds as well. Furthermore, James 2:18 says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" Suggesting that God does care about works as well.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 09:04 PM
1

It really depends on the communication between churches. A lot of Christian denominations are fairly independent in their congregations, so it would be possible for someone to simply switch churches to get married again, and not reveal their previous marriage.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:26 PM
2

I'm not saying it's human nature to be a piece of shit. It is, however, human nature to go with the crowd.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:24 PM
1

ut I know that a religious divorce - a divorce "in the church's eyes" - is different from a legal divorce. If a church doesn't see a divorce as justified, can they say "Nope, you guys are still married in our eyes"? And what would that mean, other than the fact that they could refuse to do a marriage ceremony to someone else and give the new partner the stinkeye if they come to services? That's pretty much what happens, yes.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 07:00 PM
1

Depends on the frequency, and the mindset going into it. Someone leading a sinful lifestyle will sin often, and will not care about actually doing the sinning. Someone who sins, however, generally just stumbles, but genuinely wants to change.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:57 PM
7

Never attribute to malice that which can equally be explained by stupidity.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:56 PM
2

The measure of a Christian is in how they act. And if they act like her, then she is not a Christian, or at least a very shitty one.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:51 PM
1

Truly repenting is a lot harder than it sounds.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:50 PM
2

Uhhh, not really. Forgiveness is a huge part, but in order to really be considered Christian, you actually need to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:49 PM
3

Well, what is it when someone says that they believe in something, and then act completely opposite of the way they claim to believe?
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:48 PM
8

Some people wonder why I'm not a Christian. That's not a Christian thing; that's a human thing.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 06:47 PM
1

Wow, way to completely miss the point, jackass. He's saying that you can choose not to cum in a woman, and that's the extent of a man's reproductive rights. If that's true, then a woman choosing to not have someone cum in her should be the extent of her reproductive rights, meaning that things like abortion would not be allowed.
/r/MensRights07/11/11 07:15 PM
3

Just like a woman has the right to not have someone cum inside her? If what you were saying had a lick of sense, then abortion wouldn't be legal.
/r/MensRights05/11/11 11:55 PM
3

It's still completely dishonest, and the people behind it should be severely punished.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 08:33 PM
3

She still sent troops into an extremely bloody battle. Which makes his statement entirely meaningless.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 07:05 PM
2

Uh, yeah, it is. Unless Moore's point is that they don't fire the first shot, but are still completely willing to send troops into battle, in which is statement is entirely meaningless.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 07:03 PM
3

Still, Canadian Bacon was a great movie.
/r/MensRights04/10/11 07:01 PM
4

and the girl is an evil ball busting cunt. That's because she is. Actions speak louder than words. She probably didn't mean to hurt him. Now I know you're completely full of shit.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 12:10 AM
1

When you are in the right you usually don't hide from police. Someone's never had experience with the police before. Doesn't matter if you're actually in the right, police will still haul your ass in.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 12:09 AM
3

Because he's a troll.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 09:01 PM
2

Show me evidence of the amazing miscarriages of justice that you're imagining and we'll talk further Honestly? Everything you've said should be able to happen. Someone being fired for simply being accused of something is an extreme miscarriage of justice.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 03:07 AM
2

I didn't say that. Yes, you did. You said a workplace should be able to fire someone accused of sexual assault based on the accusation, not on a conviction. I said that in cases where there is clear physical evidence that WILL lead to a clear conviction, such as a videotape of the assault on the hypothetical factory floor or in the hypothetical breakroom, you should be able to fire the person that committed the crime. If it really is that clear, then the person will be convicted. You can fire th…
/r/MensRights28/08/11 07:37 PM
2

I said I had a problem with people being protected from firing until a formal trial. And that problem is entirely unreasonable. Why the fuck should someone lose their job simply because they've been accused of something, without that accusation being proven? You're basically saying that you should be judge, jury, and executioner.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 08:49 AM
2

The fact that you think a person should be fired simply for being accused of rape is disgusting.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 08:10 PM
2

Your rights to travel, to move freely, to vote, and so on, are much more important than your right to work somewhere or get educated somewhere That doesn't mean that your right to work isn't extremely important, and essential to your survival.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:37 AM
7

What about a claim of rape with serious supporting evidence at any other workplace, like a hospital or a factory? Would you restrict the management against any disciplinary action/firing until the legal system resolved the issue? I don't see how your standard works. Yes. Otherwise they are handing out punishment without finding of fact.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:14 AM
7

False legal equivalence; "brown" people are a protected class. Gender is too.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:12 AM
3

You read far too much into my comment, and failed to consider the context from the one I replied to.
/r/MensRights17/08/11 12:40 AM
3

Obviously not the mother, otherwise she wouldn't have raped someone. You wouldn't expect a female rape victim to support the child created out of that, so why would you expect a male rape victim to? Not to mention, why do you now care about the "needs of the child"? Suppose we have a regular family: A mother, a father, and a child. Then, suddenly, the father dies. So it's just the mother and the child. Does the mother automatically get child support now? And from whom?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 07:36 PM
7

The fuck you do. In that situation, would a female rape victim be obligated to carry the child to term and raise it?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 07:04 PM
-12

I would probably agree with those. A rape victim shouldn't have to be forced to see her rapist on a regular basis.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 06:58 PM
1

40-60% rate of false rape allegations Citation needed. 10% rate of paternity fraud... Ok...? All you are doing is showing a few anecdotes. Nothing concrete that shows that women are inherently more deceitful than men. If you're going to throw that in there, then I should throw every instance of when a man deceives a woman in order to sleep with her.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:16 PM
1

And you have nothing to back up either. I'll give you that very few breast cancer patients are men, but you're going to have to come up with some extremely solid evidence to show that women are more deceitful than men.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 08:07 PM
1

Are you trying to deny that men get breast cancer? Or are you upset that your example trying to back up your ludicrous claim that deception is somehow a female trait was shot to pieces.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 07:44 PM
2

It wasn't just hypocrisy about maternity leave, it was hypocrisy concerning just about all forms of worker's rights. I only wish the radio host she brought on just to yell at had something like this prepared.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 05:40 PM
7

Advocating for equal rights is not "hate speech". Try again.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 05:35 PM
5

Men can get breast cancer as well.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 05:34 PM
9

Either way, he should not be welcome here. Someone who would say something that ignorant and hateful cannot be of any value to discussion here.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 12:22 AM
10

Wow. That is a lot of trolling for one post. You're not going to be welcomed here.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 11:30 PM
12

Gay men are still men. Their rights are just as important as any of the others that people bring up here.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 11:19 PM
1

Yes, she does. The crux of her argument is that men are not responsible enough to handle birth control.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 12:56 AM
2

It's about contraception, which they don't seem to be interested in so far. Because the male options suck, and are generally inferior to the female options. I have not once bitched about having more choices. Yes, you have. Your entire rant against male bc and for "responsibility" gives off the air that you are against people having more choices because they need to "take responsibility for themselves". In the meantime we have condoms, which are perfectly safe and reasonable. Which have several d…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:19 PM
1

No no no no no. You need better reading skills OBVIOUSLY. Your shitty writing skills started the entire thing. Your post said, "We don't need another option, condoms are good enough!" Not to mention the huge air of dickish smugness given off by it. Why don't you try reading my posts, instead of reading into my posts. We did read the posts. Why don't you actually type what you mean, if you don't want people reacting the way they do. I only called bullshit on that part, pointing out that we have a…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:17 PM
1

It implies that they take primary responsibility. That has no correlation whatsoever with the male pill, and definitely no causation either. And there's a far greater difference between taking a pill and having even minor surgery.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:13 PM
2

Or, he could get the male pill. Seriously, quit bitching about having more choices. what about the people who won't use condoms makes you think they'd use some other form of birth control? What makes you think they won't? A pill is extremely different than a condom.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:10 PM
2

It said the pill would mean a "sexual revolution" for men. His words, not mine. And it would. Similar to the way that the female pill made a "sexual revolution" for women. I mean, really? It's not like condoms don't exist right now and let you have all the sex you want child free They don't. They let you have most of the sex, but they can also be very uncomfortable. And they have a higher failure rate than the pill.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:09 PM
1

Responsibility - that's what using condoms is. No, that's what using BIRTH CONTROL is. As in, the pill form that we're discussing here. Not getting yourself there in the first place - that's what millions of responsible men have done for generations and they aren't saddled with alimony or child support or ex wives. Whoopy do. Doesn't change the fact that you had absolutely NO ANSWERS, and all you were doing was being Captain Hindsight.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:08 PM
1

I'm talking about condoms being a perfectly viable form of birth control pre male "the pill." And we're talking about having additional options. Ones that are far less prone to breakage and failure than condoms are. You're talking about denying personal rights based on a choice to not use contraception? Nobody is. What the fuck "personal rights" was anybody talking about? We were saying that a male pill would be easier and more reliable than condoms, leading to far fewer accidental pregnancies.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:07 PM
1

What the fuck is the matter with you people? That post IS NOT AGAINST MALE BIRTH CONTROL PILLS. Then get some better writing skills. We're talking about having another option, and every one of your posts says, "We don't need anything else because we have condoms and they are perfect in every way!"
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:05 PM
1

No it wouldn't. I can't say I would feel sympathy toward her, but I wouldn't not wish that upon anyone.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:03 PM
1

I hate the rules about recording people in video or audio... who the hell's that to protect!? The people who would be spied on? Like it or not, people do have a right to privacy.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:01 PM
1

False rape accusations hurt actual rape victims as well. And, in general, I'd like to think that most people don't like it when injustice happens, especially with something as sensitive as rape.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 06:00 PM
3

Well, the answer to that would then be to not trust anyone, until you have concrete evidence that you can. However, such an untrustworthy world is not really one that I'd want to live in.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:58 PM
1

Barrier birth control is good enough in my opinion, messing with hormones is a bad idea. This obviously is not true. And that doesn't address those for whom barrier birth control doesn't work, either due to a latex allergy, or simply not liking it.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:54 PM
0

She actually says that there's not enough demand for male birth control pills for pharma companies to sell them because 1. women already use them and 2. this is by far the most common form of birth control used. That doesn't make any sense, though. Saying that female birth control is popular does not have any bearing on male birth control.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:52 PM
1

She says that, but then she spends the rest of the article saying the exact opposite. It's like when someone starts a statement with, "I'm not racist, but" and then proceed to spew some of the most racist shit you've ever heard.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:51 PM
1

She shouldn't, that's the point. She should have her own method of birth control that she's using.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:48 PM
1

Drugs take a fuckton of time and money to come to market.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:46 PM
1

And then she goes on to say the exact opposite. It's like when someone begins a statement with, "I'm not racist, but" and then they proceed to spew the most racist thing you've heard of in a long time.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:45 PM
0

Totally beside the point. No more beside the point than your off topic rants.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:44 PM
0

Fuck off with your "responsibility" schtick. You know damn well that's not what's being discussed. And "You shouldn't have gotten in the situation in the first place." is not an answer to anything.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:43 PM
2

Yes, troll, that's what we're saying. Having the male pill would give another option.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:42 PM
2

There's no research given on that topic. She points to the idea that female sterilization is higher than that of vasectomies, but that doesn't prove anything regarding this. For one, a pill is a lot easier to take than even a minor surgery.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:42 PM
3

No, we did. Her "research" has nothing to do with the topic, and is a bunch of "Correlation equals Causation!" bullshit.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:39 PM
1

They're called condoms, you idiot. You can use them right now. Stop your fucking trolling. Jesus Christ, I don't think I've ever seen anybody rally against having ANOTHER CHOICE as badly as you are. You don't want the male pill. Fine. THEN DON'T FUCKING TAKE IT, YOU JACKASS. More for the rest of us that want more options in preventing pregnancy, and don't like the feel of condoms. Or are allergic to latex. This goes back to the whole BEING RESPONSIBLE thing. So you're perfectly fine with women n…
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:32 PM
3

They're called condoms, you idiot. You can use them right now. 1). Condoms suck. Not a good reason not to use them, but still. 2). Condoms break. They are pretty good at preventing pregnancy, but they have a higher failure rate than the pill. 3). Why the fuck do you give a shit? Everything you've said has just been some troll against the male pill. We get it, you don't want it. Shut the fuck up then and don't take it.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:30 PM
3

The child support system? It's horrendously uneven. The deficiencies in it have been widely publicized for years. Forgetting for a second how hard it even is for a father to get primary custody if they want it, if they do receive it, they get almost no support from the State for going after child support.
/r/MensRights08/08/11 05:28 PM
7

Does the non-abusive parent not have a right to child support? Not necessarily. If the child is cut out of someone's life, why should they pay to support it?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:58 PM
10

Ummm, no? It just says if they are capable of working full time. Not if they actually are. The vast majority of people are capable. This just means that you are not entitled to child support just because you don't have a job.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:57 PM
-1

Why should I have to pay to allow you to work? I'm supposed to pay for the benefit of the child, not you.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 06:55 PM
5

If you're going on a camping trip outside of town, why would it not be a big deal to take them in the vehicle with you?
/r/MensRights02/08/11 11:54 PM
2

He's not gonna answer you, as he's just a troll.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:35 PM
2

The kids just lost their father According to the article, several of the "fathers" didn't have contact with the children. Many weren't even given so much as a photograph of them.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:32 PM
2

But I'm really not sure how I feel about taking money away thats only going to make the child suffer in poverty. If the mother and father were together, and one or both of them lost their jobs, they'd have to just deal with it. Same should apply here. The mother fucked up royally, and so anything that happens to the children should be on her head.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:30 PM
3

But I'm really not sure how I feel about taking money away thats only going to make the child suffer in poverty. If the mother and father were together, and one or both of them lost their jobs, they'd have to just deal with it. Same should apply here. The mother fucked up royally, and so anything that happens to the children should be on her head.
/r/MensRights26/07/11 08:29 PM
1

You should. It's pretty quick to find out, and it is a handy piece of information to have, even outside the scope of paternity.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 08:22 PM
3

Their DIY kit seems incredibly unsterile. Those samples could easily become contaminated, and therefore useless. If you really want to know, spend the bucks for a kit that at least keeps it's samples in a sterile test tube.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 08:20 PM
2

I would suggest getting a lawyer at that point in time Do it beforehand. Or at least have one on retainer.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 08:17 PM
6

Which one was that? They were both drunk, so which one raped the other? Or were they both raped?
/r/MensRights21/07/11 06:37 PM
13

I don't think being against rape means you're bigoted against the demographics of people who do them. It just means you're against rape.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 08:02 PM
1

Would anyone buy the shirt in reverse? If there were one that said "Dad: Just like mom, only <something>"
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:14 PM
1

Ahh, cool. I wasn't sure on the relevant law there.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 11:40 PM
3

Silly question, but shouldn't the crime of solicitation, especially for murder, be much, much harsher than answering such an ad?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 10:29 PM
10

At the very least, all of those agreements he signed should be null and void. Although I'd probably let the divorce one stand in this case.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:03 PM
2

And I know where you would be going on the 21st. Hell. Cause that's where bad people go. People like you. Who murdered me.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 05:28 PM
1

That only works if he is incredibly valuable. It's very likely he's not (no offense, OP). Now you could say that, if he's not valuable, then he shouldn't complain, but doesn't he deserve a fair job too?
/r/MensRights27/04/11 07:00 PM
3

That would be my defense to everything.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 12:15 AM
2

She's still forcing her will on another person. If she wanted a child, then she should be having sex with another person who also wants a child, or getting a sperm donation.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:56 PM
1

And if it breaks?
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:48 PM
3

It is an agreement to the possibility of pregnancy If this is true, then abortion simply should not be legal.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:27 PM
2

I really am trying not to flame! Yes, you are. You are basically saying that men just shouldn't have sex.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:25 PM
3

He does not have to have a role in raising the child. You don't call being a wallet "having a role"?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:25 PM
4

Fuck that. If that's true, then the woman has also made her bed now, and women should not be able to have an abortion.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:23 PM
1

There is no child, only a fetus whose fate the woman controls 100%. Which is also biologically distinct from the mother.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:22 PM
6

No. If having sex without a condom, or other birth control, makes the man responsible for parenthood, then it makes the woman responsible as well. Safe Sex is both partner's responsibility.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:22 PM
6

(2) life isn't fair. So fucking what? The answer is to perpetuate unfairness?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:20 PM
11

If having sex without a condom, or with a condom and bad luck means you signed up for parenthood, then abortion would still be illegal.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:19 PM
11

The point is, the woman has the ability to decide not to be a parent in this situation. The man has no such ability.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:19 PM
9

Does my brother have any rights to choose not to be a father? For men, the only ways to exercise this right are to 1). Never have sexual contact with a woman, or 2). Have a vasectomy or other similar procedure.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:17 PM
1

Define "acting like a kid's father." If you mean simply paying child support, then I think you're completely wrong. Now, had the man actually adopted the child, then you'd have a point.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:26 PM
3

That would make it all the more hilarious.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:24 PM
2

True. But its still would be a lot better than it was before.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 08:23 PM
3

Not every state has it. And oh noes, he has to wait a few more months before getting laid.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:05 PM
2

So, no different than it is today? And I'm pretty sure a judge wouldn't let it go forward without any actual evidence.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:03 PM
2

so what won't be funded because of it? Whatever it is, I hope those people contact her to thank her for it.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 05:47 PM
2

that guys forced, for 3 months to multiple years to remain celibate As if that doesn't already happen?
/r/MensRights16/03/11 05:45 PM
3

Presumably it would be that, if you are seeking a divorce on the grounds of unfaithfulness, then the spouse could not seek alimony.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 05:43 PM
6

And have you ever paused to consider why women make the career choices you mentioned, or any of the other statements? Why, say engineering is so male dominated or example? For the purposes of the pay argument, does it matter?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 07:02 AM
0

Unless... she's hot. That's what Barney Stinson taught me.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 07:00 AM
3

Straight couples can seek out a sperm donor as well.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 12:52 AM
1

Seriously, posts like this make me testy.
/r/MensRights03/03/11 09:31 PM
1

Its Yahoo Answers. Of course there's trolling involved.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:27 PM
2

That second point does seem to be a good idea for us, though. There may be some people who need help, but might not qualify for full aid. We could offer them partial aid, or zero/very low interest loans to help out. Or maybe that sounds a little too much like college financial aid.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:11 PM
2

I think that should be step 1. Even if the charity fund doesn't get off the ground, the information compiled would be of extreme value.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:07 PM
1

Some method of prioritizing cases that the money is donated towards, such that it avoids scams and is also democratic How do other general legal funds handle this?
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:06 PM
1

Reddit has been shown to be pretty charitable in the past.
/r/MensRights17/02/11 06:06 PM
1

I'd throw in a couple bucks.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 08:32 PM
1

But were those his feelings before, or is it because she's stopped him from seeing his child, and he's lost all hope? And I wouldn't consider someone who is keeping the kid from its father to be a good caregiver either without more information as to why.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:40 PM
1

The sad thing is that all this fighting needs to take place. Especially because it involves hiring lawyers, which is sounds like this guy can ill afford to do.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:33 PM
2

No. Getting married for a kid is an awful idea. Only get married if you actually want it. Otherwise things will be shit.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:30 PM
0

How about instead of trying to sever all contact with your child, you accept your responsibly as a father? Here's a question: Why, if he needs to accept his responsibility as a father, does he get no say in whether or not to bring the child to term? And why should he have to meet these responsibilities if he doesn't get any of the benefits, like actually being with the child?
/r/MensRights16/02/11 06:27 PM
6

It has been happening for thousands/millions of years that women have been fucking men over in this way, not my fault. So, rather than moving to correct that, we should keep it that way?
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:48 AM
3

How many times has the story of someone raising a child that turned out not to be his been brought up? And often, its years after the birth, which is far too long to remove yourself as the father.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:48 AM
2

Because its the government that's going to be doing the tests, right? Not an actual hospital.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:46 AM
2

I knew it was mine, she knew it was mine. This subreddit is full of men who "knew it was theirs." And then found out it wasn't.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:38 AM
3

So how would you set things up?
/r/MensRights10/02/11 09:55 PM
1

Stupid question, but in that situation, couldn't the court have broken the lease? I mean, it doesn't sound like either of you really wanted the apartment.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 09:52 PM
3

Its a good point, which is why I think that alimony should continue for a limited time. But after a few years, if you haven't been able to find work or learn new skills, then that is your problem, not your ex's.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 09:50 PM
1

However, if you knew you could not have divorce, do you think people would take marriage much more seriously, and try to do a better job making sure the person they're with is right for them?
/r/MensRights09/02/11 08:35 PM
0

Done trolling? Cause you're still full of shit.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 10:52 AM
0

You know, in court, they actually have shit called "investigations" and "discovery" to find out what really happened. During such proceedings, it would be found out if it were simply a mistake, or if your far fetched shit happened.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 10:30 PM
8

That is being thrown in prison for failure to pay a debt. But instead of being sentenced, they're being thrown in on the whims of a judge. Not much better.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 09:32 PM
2

[Insert standard "OMG SOCIALIZM!!!1!!eleven" response here.] Although I do agree with you.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 09:30 PM
0

A radical pedophile like you will not change it. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Wanting to make the law far does NOT MAKE ANYONE A PEDOPHILE. You are a piece of shit for even suggesting it.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 08:54 PM
0

Should I give a 10 year old a pokemon, rape her, then give her a fake ID saying she's 18? That is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read on Reddit. And I lurk around F7U12 a lot.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:24 PM
1

The same reasoning occurs in the bar scene. BARS are responsible for serving minors. It doesn't matter if the minor "said" they were 21. Bars also card people going in. Therefore, if you met someone at a bar, you could argue that if the sober bouncer/bartender thought they were 21, then your drunken ass definitely would, and you did not maliciously go after an underage girl. Remember, to break the law also requires intent to do so.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:23 PM
1

Obvious Troll is Obvious.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:19 PM
2

Yeah, I don't see that ending well either. However, I do believe that, if she carries it to term, then 1). The man should have absolutely no obligation to pay anything to her at all, and 2). If the man wishes, he should be given full custody, and she should be paying support.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:17 PM
1

But then you'll hear cries of how the law is "taking away their reproductive rights."
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:14 PM
6

Perhaps one of the more law attuned Redditors could answer this, but (in general, not connected to child support), aren't debtor's prisons illegal in the US?
/r/MensRights04/02/11 07:07 PM
1

Therefore, there is now a child and HE was a part of the making of that child. He was no more a part of making the child than a sperm donor was. Should all the sperm donors start paying child support? If they were actually having sex, then I could see a reason. But they weren't. And she willingly circumvented the protections for the express purposes of trapping him with child support. She made her bed, and now she must lay in it.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 04:26 PM
1

Also, eat fewer tacos DOES NOT COMPUTE
/r/MensRights03/02/11 09:09 PM
1

I agree it must be dealt with. But there's a right way and a wrong way to do so. This is the wrong way. His precautions didn't fail, they were actively circumvented. You go on and on about life not being fair, and life being shitty. Yet, you want to purposefully make someone's life more unfair and shitty because of the actions of a 3rd person. What you're proposing is even less just and right. Don't want to see the kid grow up in poverty? Then you do something about it; you take care of the kid.…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:53 PM
1

I don't think I need to tell you life isn't fair! So? Does that mean we should actively make it less fair for someone? And Its not just "inconvenient" for this guy. He didn't want a child, and he tried to take precautions against it. The woman in this case actively circumvented those precautions. Yes, the kid growing up in poverty would suck. But that would be completely the fault of the mother. Nothing to do with the sperm donor. If she can't afford it, she either shouldn't have had the kid, or…
/r/MensRights02/02/11 04:48 AM
5

The State already is stepping in when its enforcing child support. My argument is more along the lines of, if the State thinks that the child needs this so bad, then let them take care of it. Not ruin an innocent man's life over it.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 11:11 PM
6

So you wouldn't want to support it either? So why should this man have to support a child that he had no part in conceiving either? And I agree your suggestion is better, but at the end of the day, the man is still responsible for a child that he did not want.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:21 PM
6

So because of one injustice, we need to perpetrate another one? Two wrongs don't make a right.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:08 PM
3

Hope you like snowballing, then.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:08 PM
2

I sure can.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:07 PM
7

If it truly is in the "Best interests of the child" that it be supported, let the mother's family chip in, or maybe the State. Don't ruin an innocent man's life for another.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:06 PM
12

At the same time though, it is a punishment, especially in cases like these. The man had nothing to do with conceiving the child. Why should he support it? If I left a random baby on your doorstep, should you be forced to support it?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:04 PM
2

I think he means that, from now on, everyone is going to take what she says with a large dose of salt. Its quite possible that she could be raped, and now people won't believe her because she has a record of lying about it.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:58 PM
6

No. We still have the ideal of "Innocent until Proven Guilty."
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:56 PM
4

There is a large difference between not being able to prove it because of a lack of evidence, and not being able to prove it because the victim lied.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 11:52 PM
7

How is it "destroying someone's life?" You ever been around someone, or known someone, who was accused of rape? That shit gets around. Someone accuses you, and in the eyes of society, you're already guilty. Doesn't matter if you are or not, people think you're guilty. And the stigma of being accused of rape will follow you around, especially in the Google era. People will see the articles saying that you were accused, but few would see articles saying charges were dropped, or that someone was ex…
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:36 AM
9

Is it? Should someone be able to lie, and destroy someone's life, and not be punished with jail time? What would be the appropriate punishment?
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:11 AM
1

That bit isn't bad, as anyone else who is incarcerated has the same opportunity.
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:04 AM
5

So? What's your point? Do you have any other alternative suggestions?
/r/MensRights18/01/11 01:03 AM
1

No, but if you're not a patron of the club, let alone living in the city where the club is, why should you get to dictate how they decorate?
/r/MensRights12/01/11 12:04 AM
2

Seeing it in person means that there's a chance that you're actually a customer of the business. That chance is much lower if you just see it in a magazine, particularly if you don't even live in the city.
/r/MensRights11/01/11 11:12 PM
4

Really? A group of people, who can't even use the damn thing, constitute "the market"?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 11:09 PM
1

That would be identity theft, however, which would be a completely different ball game.
/r/MensRights09/01/11 07:26 AM
5

Which is why the transverse of my argument should also be true: If engaging in sex doesn't mean one partner consents to create a child, then the other partner doesn't either.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:53 PM
5

I'm equipped to create one. All you're serving to do with that is further divide the sexes and call them unequal. If one partner consents to create a child simply by engaging in sex, than the other partner should as well.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:43 PM
-1

Mortalities from giving birth are few and far between, especially in the first world. While I agree that if such a situation were to occur, abortion should be on the table, it is not a common occurrence.
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:38 PM
1

So you would be in favor then, of the woman paying child support to the man in Scenario #3?
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:28 PM
2

Your consent to having a kid in 3 occurs when you have sex. Wouldn't that then also apply to the woman, and thus not allow her to have an abortion?
/r/MensRights16/12/10 05:26 PM
3

How about an equalist?
/r/MensRights15/12/10 10:20 PM
2

Honest men also don't assume guilt simply because ancestors might have done something bad. Society has changed quite a bit, and it is retarded to keep holding to what men may or may not have been back in the day.
/r/MensRights06/12/10 07:16 PM
6

What the fuck are you talking about? Essentially, the judge here told him that he has to get another job just to pay child support/alimony. How in the world is that fair?
/r/MensRights05/12/10 11:05 PM
6

So? This sets a terrible precedent for you and me. He might be able to, but you or I would most likely not. Should it be right that a judge can essentially order you to take another job just to pay child support/alimony?
/r/MensRights05/12/10 11:03 PM
7

I'm sure they were part of some horrible warrior tribe at some point, where my great-great-great-great grandpappy shoved a iron blade into the gullet of someone who probably didn't deserve it So what? How does that, in any way, shape, or form, make you be accountable for those actions? Should Bush's daughter's be responsible for their father's actions while in office?
/r/MensRights05/12/10 11:01 PM
0

Top 10 stupid things about Martians.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:43 PM
31

Next time reply with a "Top 10 stupid things about women", and see how long til someone complains to HR.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:58 PM
4

Agreed. However, on the plus side, you do get a sandwich.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 03:57 PM
1

Ignore him. He's a retarded troll who equates anything negative with liberalism.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 06:23 PM
2

Has anyone ever countered this by saying that every terrible, awful dictator and mass murderer also had a mother?
/r/MensRights14/11/10 12:34 AM
1

For that possible eventuality when the issue of paternity and child support come up.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:28 PM
1

I may not have been clear enough on this, but anything mandated by government reduces the individual's freedom to some extent. No, just no. Generalizing everything like that just makes whatever you say seem less relevant by association. but to automatically do a paternity test for each and every child born in the (Western) world is a ridiculous waste of money, and time. DNA tests are already pretty fast and cheap. Extending that would cause greater economies of scale to kick in. I find it odd th…
/r/MensRights09/11/10 05:27 PM
2

Well yeah, but that's because you've been getting a little pudgy.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:57 PM
1

How the hell does a mandatory DNA test turn into oppression?
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:55 PM
3

How about the test is performed, and recorded, but then the parents have the option of not knowing? The only problem with this is what happens when a child gets struck with a genetic disease/disorder, and the father isn't the biological father, and they need parental records.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 03:53 PM
1

So the solution is to completely take away his livelihood so he can't east or get medical care? I fail to see how that makes anything better.
/r/MensRights09/11/10 02:42 AM
12

Really? I mean, regardless of the amount you owe, you should be left enough after payments to feed yourself and receive basic medical care.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 04:35 PM
7

Isn't that stuff what the child support is supposed to go for?
/r/MensRights08/11/10 04:32 PM
7

I fail to see how silencing other points of view makes you better off.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 04:29 PM
6

Birth Control is the responsibility of both partners.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 04:27 PM
5

The issue is, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to be a parent after conception. A man has no such choice.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:43 AM
5

The child has the right to support, neither the woman nor the man can change that. The woman can change that. She can deny the fetus the support of her uterus.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:35 AM
1

However, a woman has the right to abandon a child at conception by depriving it of the resource of her uterus.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:33 AM
7

I think the point is that he lied about having the assets, and trying to hide them. Both are no nos.
/r/MensRights21/10/10 02:13 PM
0

I think you have your axes crossed
/r/MensRights15/10/10 04:25 AM
1

Not every firefighter goes into burning buildings on search of people. As long as she could handle the hoses and other stuff, she might be fine.
/r/MensRights10/10/10 04:40 AM
1

Performance. Unless you have dedicated, hardware encryption, things are going to slow down. Not noticeably for most tasks, but for stuff like video editing and gaming, you'll probably see it.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 07:00 PM
5

Why do you think that? Maybe he just values his privacy. Its lines of thinking like this that let the state get away with such crap.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 06:59 PM
8

If she's so afraid of the risk of STDs, then use protection, or better yet, don't have sex.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 11:04 PM
1

Intent of malice toward the victim isn't always necessary for it to be a crime.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 07:50 PM
6

Don't forget Nancy Grace.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 07:48 PM
1

We already restrict the free press on other, similar matters. Often, the victims of sex crimes are also kept anonymous. Does that restrict the free press too?
/r/MensRights29/09/10 07:46 PM
2

the general public just needs to demonstrate some empathy and wisdom. Yes, that will definitely happen. No use trying to fix the system, the public will do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 07:44 PM
2

Does it really? While I won't disagree that people accused of sex crimes are usually demonized much more than most other criminals, why do we have to treat sex crimes differently, especially if there is a chance to help others falsely accused of crimes. Extending anonymity to most, if not all defendants, does not diminish the help it provides those accused of sex crimes in one bit.
/r/MensRights29/09/10 07:42 PM
2

And to cook with fire! Don't forget that.
/r/MensRights16/09/10 05:11 PM
1

That seems illogical to me because that does not equate to justice. So you would be willing to have a higher conviction rate, at the expense of those who are innocent. Like I said above. You want a perfect justice system, where every guilty man is convicted, and every innocent man is acquitted. That would be nice, but it will never happen as long as people are in charge of the system.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 06:19 PM
1

And you are apparently willing to settle for a higher conviction rate at the expense of imprisoning the innocent. You want a perfect justice system. That would be great. But as long as our system in made by and involves people, that will never happen.
/r/MensRights15/09/10 05:09 PM
1

Because there are always going to be errors. Until we're like Vulcans, or machines, with perfect logic, there will be errors (and possibly even then, too). Error X is far preferable to Error Y, so we should balance our justice system to minimize the amount of times Error Y happens, even if this is at the expense of Error X happening more.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 10:50 PM
2

That's kinda the point of this thread. There's really no point in discussing whether punishing an innocent is as bad as letting a guilty go free. However, we can take precautions, and attempt to balance between the two so that innocents are punished far less.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 10:49 PM
4

That may be true. But again, given that our justice system is created by Man, it can be flawed. I would hope that our flaws would err on the side of letting the guilty go free instead of sending the innocent to jail.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 10:23 PM
2

However, when setting up our justice system, if we are going to err, it would be better to err on the side of letting a guilty man go free than sending an innocent man to jail.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 10:19 PM
5

Ten murderers released from prison is not better than 1 man wrongfully jailed for 90 days. Except in most cases, that innocent man is going to be in jail for much, much longer than 90 days. Long enough, in some cases, to where his life has more or less been wasted.
/r/MensRights14/09/10 10:18 PM
-1

The 50% of marriages ending in divorce also includes a lot of 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th marriages, which have a much higher rate of divorce than the 1st marriage.
/r/MensRights13/09/10 06:17 PM
1

Does the existence of one have to be made public knowledge? Why can't they get one made up by themselves (and a lawyer, obviously), without input of friends and family?
/r/MensRights13/09/10 06:15 PM
9

Apparently it says 42% of men would "pull a Kardashian" (i assume that would be the sex tape one).
/r/MensRights09/09/10 02:41 AM
2

Especially if he has a smartphone with a data plan, and a Qik (or similar) account. Then the video is uploaded directly to the internet, even if the phone is later confiscated.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 09:39 PM
3

Wrong. A private business may charge whatever they want, but that price should be the same for everyone.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 11:52 PM
0

Truly, they are doing the Lord's work.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 04:38 PM
5

That right there is one of the reasons our legal system is so fucked up.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 04:34 PM
5

That may seem the more polite and civil way to do it, but that still had to be hell, unless she was amazing at hiding her feelings.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 04:32 PM
6

Visit your spouse in the hospital while they're dying? There's a list of about 1100 benefits and rights that a married couple gets that a non-married couple (or those in a civil union) don't get.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 04:28 PM
2

Nooooo! I have failed you, Reddit, in a Futurama quote. I shall now go commit seppuku, to regain Karma for my family.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 03:06 PM
4

most people won't resist. They think that if they just lay there, then it'll be over soon and they won't get hurt any more.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 05:49 AM
4

Please! The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and weak
/r/MensRights11/08/10 05:45 AM
6

1). Require paternity tests and DNA tests for all child support orders.
/r/MensRights29/07/10 06:33 PM
17

Agreed, however, the woman should not be allowed to make a decision which will basically enslave the man for the next 20 years.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 05:26 PM
4

You know who does know? Doctors.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:35 PM
3

No, you don't, apparently. You even said above that you are simply going to believe what you believe when told to actually look into the basic physiology behind it.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:32 PM
4

No. You may be entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:31 PM
4

No, you're getting downvoted because you're perpetuating a lie, you're adding nothing to the discussion, and now you're bitching about being downvoted.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:30 PM
7

You must not have gone through puberty yet. Men can get boners at any time, especially when they don't want them.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:28 PM
4

Are you saying that you haven't heard a good argument that men can be raped? What about the argument that rape is sex without consent? I would think that it is quite possible for someone to have sex with a man without their consent.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:26 PM
9

I would say that insinuating something like, "Men can't be raped" is far beyond not agreeing, and is somewhere in the realm of either being a complete idiot to being a complete fucktard.
/r/MensRights22/07/10 07:24 PM
4

Again, you are making this claim. By googling that, I'll probably get several different numbers. I want to know what you're looking at.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:45 PM
1

I wanna see where you're getting those numbers.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:42 PM
0

And how many of those divorces were initiated because they caught their husband in infidelity?
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:40 PM
2

To be fair, this conversation is almost perfectly engineered to inspire rage. I read it and got pissed off, before I looked for the citation and found none.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:38 PM
5

You presented the stats. The onus is on YOU to provide the citation.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:35 PM
36

Occam's Razor, my friend.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:34 PM
4

If this really did happen, why not just link to the forum itself? Or if that's not possible, at least show a screenshot of the forum/chat log.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:32 PM
20

It sounds like the "support" the OP mentioned would be Alimony, not child support. I don't think any states allow you to sign away your child's right to support.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:28 PM
10

Not all jobs allow for this.
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:27 PM
1

You're probably not gonna be able to find a 110 pound man who would be able to do the same thing. Someone that small is, in all likelihood, not going to be on the front lines.
/r/MensRights01/07/10 08:40 PM
9

Tell them you're Jewish, and so it needs to be part of the religious ceremony.
/r/MensRights18/05/10 08:23 PM
10

You ever seen a fight with crazy women? They're like short guys: They may not have much, but they will throw everything they can at you.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 07:46 PM
15

True. But you should also not freak out if someone doesn't. Its an elevator door. It won't be the end of the world if you have to wait for the next one.
/r/MensRights27/04/10 07:45 PM
0

I don't get what the big deal is. If you wanted to be able to have a life outside of your home and work, you shouldn't have been born with a penis.
/r/MensRights31/03/10 01:26 AM
2

I think its a corollary of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 11:38 PM
4

I am shocked, absolutely shocked, that there are crazy people on the internet.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 11:37 PM
3

Its funny, but there was a woman on there who said one of the worst things she could do would be to birth a son.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 11:37 PM
3

It must be something like the Balmer Peak. The Boner Peak?
/r/MensRights19/03/10 11:36 PM
8

I read your quoting of that, and it got me so upset I almost downvoted you.
/r/MensRights19/03/10 11:21 PM
1

Just because he broke up with the mother means he shouldn't have to support his offspring anymore? While I agree that the current system is broken, a divorced father still needs to support his children.
/r/MensRights03/03/10 07:15 PM
8

The thing about guys not coming got it for me. I remember several times having sex with my ex gf where I wouldn't finish, and I'd be going at it for a long time, kinda just wanting to get it over with. Eventually I'd give up, pull out, and she'd start to try jerking me off or blowing me, and this sometimes would make it worse.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 07:13 PM
2

Wait, women get a flag now? God damn, they get everything :(
/r/MensRights23/02/10 07:28 AM
1

They can have it. I caught the nerd flu coming out of the Penny Arcade Expo, and that was miserable enough.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 12:14 AM
2

Upvoted for Al Bundy.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 12:13 AM
0

I think that's where the concept of alimony originated; couples would get married, and the woman would work to support her husband who was going through law/medical school. Once he's out in the world and actually making money, he would dump her for someone younger, leaving her with nothing.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 12:11 AM
6

Everybody's missing the real shocker of the story so far. The story at the bottom of the article about one of the boys losing his penis due to a botched circumcision. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?
/r/MensRights29/06/09 11:38 PM
1

I'm sure she'd love it if I took her on a date where we sat on a blanket in the park and ate picnic type food and watched people.
/r/MensRights10/06/09 12:11 AM
6

She's right. A woman shouldn't trust a guy who says that he's had the jab. Just like a man shouldn't trust a woman who says she's on the pill/shot/whatever. Both parties should take their birth control stuff, and then condoms should be used to prevent the spread of STDs.
/r/MensRights11/05/09 10:07 PM
5

She should be forced to bear the burden of restoring the man's reputation.
/r/MensRights17/02/09 12:45 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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