TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

semantical Archive

View 3 posts and 261 comments by semantical on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Yeah. But at that point, you are not disobeying a police officer but a thug with a gun. In which case, it is not legal advice but prudential advice to do what they say within reason (do not comply with rape or whatever obviously) and argue your case later.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/07/17 06:35 PM
1

They're both horrible.
/r/MensRights18/03/16 08:30 PM
5

Because Doe v. Bolton. There are several late-term abortion clinics in the US. A woman can claim financial or psychological reasons to kill their unborn child in third trimester. For all intents and purposes, abortions are legal up to the due date in the US. The only limiting factor is that most doctors do not do them because they view it as wrong. Abortionists are stigmatized among physicians. According to government statistics about 11k+ late term abortions happen annually in the United States…
/r/MensRights02/03/16 05:01 AM
3

She can still kill the child legally in the third trimester.
/r/MensRights01/03/16 06:26 PM
4

You have no idea how the world works, how men work, how women work, how drugs work, or anything really.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 06:39 PM
0

I'd love to see desegregated bathrooms at nascar. All the women walking by as guys have their dicks hanging out over the trough, farting, blowing loogies, etc. Gender segregated bathrooms is not an injustice. It's not like "whites only."
/r/MensRights02/01/16 06:36 PM
10

I'd very much want those nine in prison even at the expense of the free man. Do you also think it's morally permissible to kill one healthy person and distribute their organs to save five other people that need transplants? No? Yeah me neither. You know why? Because we have individual rights.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 06:20 PM
-2

What if 50 women claimed that he murdered Jimmy Hoffa? Does that mean he actually murdered Jimmy Hoffa? I'm just wondering how absurd your willing to take this ridiculous criterion for truth.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 12:13 PM
-2

Oh I see. So if 50 women claimed he is a horse, then he would be a horse since horses exist. Is that right?
/r/MensRights15/12/15 12:07 PM
-4

So he's only guilty when 50 women claim he is a rapist but not of being a witch?
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:51 AM
1

What if 50 women said he is a witch?
/r/MensRights15/12/15 11:21 AM
2

Hey. Stupid fucking retard. I meant that it's not hard to believe that someone ethnically pakistani would have a name like Mustafa. Fucking idiot. Now shut the fuck up and stop complaining about stupid shit. you moron.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 09:04 PM
5

Goldsmiths' Student Diversity Officer Bahar Mustafa: 'I Can't Be Racist Or Sexist Because I'm An Ethnic Minority Woman' It doesn't say Paki explicitly in there but I don't know what else ethnic minority she could be referring to with a name like "Mustafa" which is pakistani. Idiot.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 08:57 PM
30

I thought feminists were all about "intersectionality." Wouldn't a bill like this make transsexuals that don't reveal it prior to sex as rapists?
/r/MensRights26/05/15 02:12 PM
2

So she said equality cannot go beyond 50% and then rails on about gender gaps in various areas. I don't understand these people. Do they honestly think that achieving equality will somehow balance all professions and positions as 50/50 reflections? Is, in their mind, equality somehow going to erase innate differences? This goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding that equality is not in outcome but opportunity and that equality isn't zero sum. Under-representation is not automatically indic…
/r/MensRights27/04/15 09:22 AM
1

OK OK Open with a joke... here we go... So I haven't seen this much excitement in the mornings since my first AA meeting [crowd laughs] Alright let's crank the cringe up some more by laughing at my own joke: heh heh heh ha ha heh heh Ok ok good you killed you killed now let's make sure to make this extra cringe-sauce: I'll... I'll.. be here all weekend apparently here
/r/MensRights27/04/15 09:12 AM
3

"You are not the first person to wince at that, but many others, mainly but not only women, have smiled. Would you object if I said 'whites are bad because they oppress blacks,' or 'Anglos are bad because they oppress Latinos,' or 'rich people are bad because they oppress the poor'? How come after 12 millennia of oppression of women by men, I can't say men are bad for doing that? Says an anthropologist, the female supremacist that the blog author has made the subject of deserved ridicule in her …
/r/MensRights27/04/15 08:07 AM
2

( . Y . )
/r/MensRights23/04/15 08:01 AM
2

Goddamn... can these women not get men their own age? wtf.
/r/MensRights23/04/15 07:58 AM
-1

I'm very frightened that my fellow MRAs take this case as some kind of injustice. This man raped this woman. Marriage doesn't override autonomy. Marriage isn't blanket consent and rape can occur within it. Rape is rape regardless of marriage. This man knew she was too incompetent to consent, as he was told by doctors, but decided to take advantage of his sick wife and fuck her anyway. That's sick. That's rape. Anyone who is apologizing for him is actually a rape apologist and should be ashamed.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 02:31 PM
0

I'm very sympathetic to the MRA... but I swear to fucking god, man. It's dip shits like you that make the MRA look bad. Honestly, you make me lose faith in this whole thing. Sex without consent is rape. Period. Marriage doesn't override it. Nothing overrides it. It is principle.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 07:17 AM
0

So since her husband usually has sex with her then therefore that gives him the right to fuck her regardless of whether she is competent enough to consent or not? Do you stand by this?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 06:52 AM
-2

So you actually believe that the husband is more of an expert in understanding the diseases that affect the brain and how it relates to issues like competency than doctors that dedicate and specialize in that? You want to stand by this?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 06:50 AM
-2

So a friend of the family can fuck them without their consent?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 06:33 AM
-2

So you think he's more of an expert on Alzheimer's and how it affects competency than doctors that specialize in Alzheimer's care?
/r/MensRights19/04/15 05:49 AM
-4

You're soulless, because you would deny your wife intimacy she wants because she is suffering from an illness. I wouldn't rape my wife in this situation because I'd respect her too much. Consent is about competency. Maybe she did desire sex. It doesn't matter. She cannot competently choose for it. Do you think it's right for a stranger to rape nursing home residents that doctors have analyzed to be too incompetent to consent. Why not? Horny old men and women that are too incompetent to consent t…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 05:12 AM
1

You're appealing to tradition here. You're saying because this has been an obligation between partners in a marriage historically, then therefore it's the correct way to be in a marriage. Your argument is fallacious. It'd be like me arguing that historically in the US black people have been held to be inferior to white men in all avenues of life. Employer-employee relationships entail voluntarily taking on responsibilities. A white employer should expect a black employee to be inferior in all av…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:53 AM
2

So it's assault when a woman penetrates you without your immediate consent, even in marriage, but it's not when you penetrate your wife without her immediate consent? I'm aware of how analogies work. And I'm also aware that your arguments from analogy are from false analogies and I explained why with more apt analogies.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 03:59 AM
-4

I'm soulless because I wouldn't rape my wife, who is mentally incompetent due to an illness? Yeah mmkay buddy.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 03:42 AM
2

It's not at all like a woman taking money out of your wallet and charging her with theft. It's more like your wife tying you up and jamming a large dildo up your ass and you being able to charge her with rape.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 03:41 AM
-5

That would make no difference. It's about what he could and did know. He was told by professionals that her state of mind prevented her from being able to consent. He chose to ignore that and rape her anyway. That's fucked up.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 02:37 AM
1

Property doesn't have autonomy. People have autonomy. It doesn't matter what happened throughout human history, even if it were as you say then it was completely immoral. And we have rectified that. No one is entitled to sex with their spouse regardless of their spouses consent then and there. So you can go on thinking you're entitled to rape your spouse all you want. Thankfully, we live in a society that will imprison anyone that does.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 01:23 AM
-2

This is the real rape culture. Of course, it's largely ignored or condoned. You guys wanna know why? Because it's GASP, men who do the raping. Therefore, of course according to feminist logic, this makes women the victim.
/r/MensRights19/04/15 12:01 AM
-3

I'm all for men's rights, but marriage isn't a blanket consent to sex at any point at anytime. That is fucking absurd. And you all would do well to stop repeating this because this can only be reasonably inferred as the position that rape is not an issue between married couples. It certainly is. No man or woman is entitled to have sex any place at any time regardless of the autonomy of their partner. Goddamn I cannot even stress how fucking retarded it is to think marriage is a blanket consent. …
/r/MensRights18/04/15 11:28 PM
1

/u/TRPACC is fucking retarded, man. This whole thread was such a waste of time.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 12:23 AM
8

Yes. I agree. I hadn't heard of this Kipnis lady but she is clearly being tongue-in-cheek here. The rest of the article seems to suggest that she is fed up with the third wave melodramatic hijacking of feminism as well. here is the article. I will say, though, it's hard to blame some people for hearing that a feminist professor said that and believing it was serious. Lots of shit is said by ridiculous professor such as white people needing to be obliterated. This kind of shit comes down the pipe…
/r/MensRights13/04/15 10:58 PM
3

She explains "If we are truly equal, then why the need to sort people into these unfair discriminatory categories? It is quite clearly the manifestation and creation of misogyny and a culture of patriarchy intended to infiltrate discourse and herd humanity. Which is wrong, and at the heart of male privilege. I would like to see a world in which all male pronouns are a thing of the past." There you have it. There are natural differences. Instead of recognizing this fact she jumps to the erroneous…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 07:46 PM
1

Rape culture as understood by feminists is rape culture where women are the primary victims of it. A component of this rape culture is the trivialization of rape. Does trivialization of rape exists generally in the culture? Yes. What kind is it? It's the kind that trivializes rape where men are the victims. I used this component of rape culture to show you that the evidence is contrary to women being the primary victims. So if we are to concede that rape culture exists then we need to revamp wha…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:41 PM
1

counter arguments (which is counter-evidence) to rape culture which is understood as the culture of rape that primarily victimizes women. Then you claimed there was no evidence of trivialization of rape. There is absolutely no evidence that society in general trivializes rape against women. Indeed, there is evidence that society trivializes only rape against men. Rape culture where men are primarily the victims of it is not the rape culture as understood by feminist. These are two different conc…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:38 PM
1

Holy crap. Will you pick up a goddamn book. No. The topic is whether not RAPE CULTURE as UNDERSTOOD BY FEMINISTS exists. This RAPE CULTURE is understood in that the victims are PRIMARILY FEMALE. So even though all instances of rape trivialization may be a component of feminist "rape culture" it does not serve as evidence that rape culture primarily victimizes women. Indeed, we actually have facts that show that instances of actual rape culture, such as in US male prison populations, actually pri…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:33 PM
1

No. A comedian telling a joke about rape is not equal to the large studies that indicate actual rape epidemics in US male prison populations. You fucking tool.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:30 PM
1

Show me a single feminist that explicitly states that rape culture is primarily victimizing men.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:28 PM
1

Dunning-Kruger.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:27 PM
1

A component of feminist ideology "rape culture" may understand all trivialization of rape as part of rape culture. But part of their understanding of rape culture is that WOMEN are the PRIMARY VICTIMS. Show me a single feminist that explicitly states that men are actually the primary victims of rape culture.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:26 PM
1

That is a single joke by a single comedian. It doesn't at all serve as evidence for any rape culture. You'd need an extensive study you fucking dumbass.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:25 PM
1

you don't fucking understand rape culture. Rape culture as espoused by feminist is that it is primarily an injustice to women. Women are the primary victims of rape culture. If men are the primary victims of rape culture then you're not talking about the rape culture that feminists are talking about.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:18 PM
2

You showed how rape is trivialized against men. That's not the "rape culture" that is supported by feminist ideology. They see rape culture as an extension of patriarchy which primarily hurts women. You goddamn retard.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:17 PM
3

This is my last response to you because you're incredibly dishonest. If you can't see evidence that its trivialized, its just because its normal in the culture. This implies that I'm just too hypnotized by rape culture to see how obviously it must exist. Therefore, my inability to accept it as real is evidence for it existing. You fucking idiot. Goddamn how you're so stupid I don't understand. Yes. I believe rape culture exist where primarily it is an injustice against men. Feminists do not agre…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:14 PM
3

If you can't see evidence that its trivialized, its just because its normal in the culture. You're a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:04 PM
2

I think lots of instances of rape where the male is the victim is trivialized. The typical feminist understands "rape culture" to be primarily an injustice against women. If you show me a feminist who recognizes the problem of rape culture as an injustice primarily to men rather than women and I'll concede that is a feminist who can see through their blinders.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 06:02 PM
2

Anyhow, its too complicated to just articulate in a sentence or paragraph.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 05:59 PM
4

A feminist lying or misunderstanding the facts. Nothing new or surprising here.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 05:58 PM
2

If no one can explain a concept concisely then no one knows what the hell they are talking about.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 05:52 PM
3

The counter arguments are the counter-evidences. When it's brought forth from the "academic" definition of rape culture that society, in general, "trivializes" rape, then you can show how society takes rape incredibly seriously. It shows how rape instances have been decreasing due to how seriously society takes rape, etc. Well, then "trivializing rape" actually doesn't mean what it would ordinarily mean. This is because the evidence doesn't support the ordinary understanding of what it means for…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 05:50 PM
0

Men are free from consequences for sex? Women are not as free from consequence as men. It's called pregnancy. Child support is a social consequence to sexual freedom on men, not a natural one. STDs are natural consequences for both men and women.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 04:55 PM
4

Probably because the meaning of it can switch on a dime. What's not dysfunctional is to ask for evidence of so-called rape culture. You'll often find that evidence doesn't exist or is completely exaggerated. It's very similar to the patriarchy. The meanings of that change for whats convenient for them as well. The patriarchy and rape culture are like their devil. It's omnipresent and ineffable. It's just an excuse for all the bad things that happen.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 04:08 PM
2

In my own experiences, women think feminism is about denigrating men. They might say "Now this is going to sound feminist but...." and then they say something that implies men are inferior. People know what it is up. They believe in equality, but they just think people who are "proud feminists" are fucking supremacists. If these "proud feminists" weren't so goddamn proud maybe they'd become somewhat self-aware.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 03:55 PM
-4

The only reason the radfems want the government to provide all contraception and abortions for free to women is because they want women to be as sexually liberated (free from consequences) as men are. Women can only be as sexually free as men with the aid of technology. Since I believe in gender equality, and I believe women and men should be as free as their nature allows, I do not believe that the government has any right to provide women with free technology to enable them to be as sexually f…
/r/MensRights12/04/15 03:45 PM
4

I'd love a study on this. It would be incredibly interesting. I happen to agree with the author here. If you ask people what they think about diversity OBVIOUSLY no one is going to talk negatively about it. So really what they're trying to do is weed people out who don't speak positively enough about it. I can see white men most frequently being able to recognize the shortcomings of holding diversity as this holy goal.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 07:55 PM
5

crybabies
/r/MensRights08/04/15 07:48 PM
24

duh
/r/MensRights08/04/15 07:40 PM
1

There's no sense in continuing a conversation with you because you're an absolute tard.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 05:23 PM
1

godammit you're such a fucking idiot.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 05:19 PM
0

Goddammit you're so stupid. Children lack autonomy. Right? Parents can override the autonomy of children. They can take them for rides regardless of whether they want to or not. This is an acceptable violation of their autonomy because we don't see them as rational enough to make these sorts of decisions on their own. The ill and elderly are treated as such. An unacceptable violation of their autonomy is to FUCK THEM regardless of whether the children or ill person think they want it or not. You…
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:50 PM
0

Being proclaimed unable to consent due to a neurological degenerative disease is in a sense like being extremely shit-faced drunk. You're the fucking moronic stupid retarded motherfucker that thinks there isn't an area of shit-faced drunk where it becomes in principle wrong to violate them. You stupid piece of fucking shit.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:39 PM
-1

This is stupid and you should be ashamed for bringing it up. So I guess when someone suffers a stroke or overdose of some kind we're not supposed to drive them to the hospital because it might conflict with their "autonomy." You don't take a drunk home because they requested it. You take a drunk home because they wouldn't be safe trying to on their own. It's clearly not the same, idiot.
/r/MensRights08/04/15 03:18 PM
4

Probably because it's fucking ridiculous
/r/MensRights08/04/15 02:01 PM
1

I've been thinking about this and I feel like what this guy did was wrong. You could imagine this is like a sober and rational person knowingly forcing sex on a person that is shit faced drunk. But Douglas Wornell, a Tacoma, Wash., geriatric psychiatrist and author of the book “Sexuality and Dementia,” told Bloomberg it was “naïve” to conclude that Donna’s memory loss indicates she was incapable to knowing whether she wanted to have sex, which is “along the order of knowing you want some food,” …
/r/MensRights08/04/15 02:27 AM
2

We all know there are clear biological differences between men and women in terms of strength and endurance. However, even if that weren't the case ... even if it were the case that the hormones would magically reverse this fact by social decree somehow, then it's still silly not expect them to fail miserably when met with the same standards. If you put George Castanza in tryouts for the NBA, clearly he's going to fail.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:58 PM
2

So I guess you want to stick with your assertion that pornography causes some sort of sexist attitudes. OK. You're throwing your lot in with the profoundly discredited sex negative movement of the 1970s. I think you'll find that when you search the literature without an eye of confirmation bias you'll see that this debate has already been won. The "sex object" study you linked can be dismissed since being prone to seeing someone as a "sex object" does not imply a shift toward sexist attitudes. T…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 07:38 PM
9

He believes that women are not oppressed at all by the state while men are. He refers to things like the ridiculous business with family courts. I haven't heard a single feminist dispute this. The feminists usually prop up societal disparities -- such as in careers or whatever -- that they perceive are inequities but none of them involve any kind of state oppression. They will point to how women hold the least high government positions but there's no state barriers against women voting. So this …
/r/MensRights07/04/15 05:17 PM
5

Ok. Let's agree to disagree that porn influences men's ideas about women, or that it could exist in a less misogynistic capacity. No. Let's agree that you have no evidence to support this assertion. Second paragraph - "with victims mostly being women." Links to an economist piece which provides no evidence to their claims.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 04:19 PM
4

When its hard to find a hetero porn title where the actress isn't referred to as a misogynistic slur (and where male performers are rarely given slurs), I consider it a source for some men's misogyny and disregard for women's agency, or at least contributive to those things. Baseless assertion. I'm discussing trends. Just because women have done it to men doesn't erase the fact overwhelmingly the converse is true. ... Perhaps examples like /r/facebookcleavage, /r/candidfashionpolice and the scan…
/r/MensRights07/04/15 03:55 PM
10

When you consider men's exposure to pornography, referring to women as 'slut', 'dirty whore', 'bitch' etc. who routinely get to have their 'pussy stretched by his massive cock' and where even the most mainstream kinds involve slapping and choking of the female actress. (Never have I witnessed us men collectively protesting this.) Men and sex positive feminists don't protest this probably because there's no reason to unless you have evidence beyond your fucking retarded baseless implication that …
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:25 PM
5

da fuq...
/r/MensRights07/04/15 02:01 PM
8

I'd also like to add that your experience of male friends that you surround yourself with does not at all match mine. So I'd question the type of people you gravitate toward. This might be a moment for you to reflect on some possible subconscious urges that you need to deal with. But just because you're dealing with some deep possibly misogynistic tendencies doesn't reflect on men as a whole. So I would ask that you take some time to reflect on your issues and try not to project.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:53 PM
2

Women are taught not to get raped the same way I am as a male. I'm also taught not to get murdered or stolen from. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We're all 'taught' not to rape just as we're 'taught' not to kill. There's nothing special about rape that's getting left out.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:49 PM
13

Choo choo! All aboard the baseless assertion train. Next stop, erroneous conclusion-ville.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 01:46 PM
1

That was fantastic. I appreciate this. I can't get over how lazily they speak, though. It seems like the words just fall out of their mouths rather than being put out in force.
/r/MensRights15/03/15 04:39 PM
1

I don't know. The gray areas may be handled on a case-by-case basis. But 25 is a definitive deal breaker.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 03:27 PM
1

The only way I could have to find it disgusting is if it made any difference to me. Since it does not, for reasons I gave, then no it wouldn't be. However, if I were homosexual, it might be disgusting to me because then it would make a difference to me. A cheetah taking a shit on the planes of Africa doesn't register as disgusting to me because it has nothing to do with me. If I were standing next to the Cheetah and had the smell enter my olfactories then I would probably find it disgusting. Yes…
/r/MensRights09/03/15 01:20 AM
1

I have no sexual interest in men. I have no interest in a romantic partnership with men. So it makes no difference to me what they do in their disgusting sexual life of promiscuity.
/r/MensRights09/03/15 12:02 AM
1

I think it's a disgusting habit which is a reflection of deeper character flaws and low sense of self-worth.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 10:38 PM
1

There's no situation I can imagine that would excuse that apart from someone forcing her to be that way.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 09:40 PM
0

So it'd be more like you taste some new foreign food, really like it, but then you find out it's cow lung or something gross and then you no longer like it. So you just found out that when you hide something from them they can enjoy a part of it but when you reveal a quality that for them may serve as a deal breaker for "tasty foods" then that is there preference. It's still just a preference. Tastes change. Values change.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 07:07 AM
1

Well you realize even whores don't come out and admit they don't care enough about you to respect you enough not to cheat. So, if they are promiscuous, and if there is sufficient correlation then you can make a rational judgment even if the whore doesn't tell you they are adulterous.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:55 AM
0

Well then you need to learn how to fucking read. I said IF there is strong correlation between these two properties in the data then that means there is a pattern and predictions can be made and we can therefore make rational judgments based on this. This was all conditional because you were making the comment that "correlation doesn't mean causation" and then that person told you that your comment was irrelevant AND IT IS FOR THE REASONS I PRESENT.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:42 AM
3

You're a goddamn fucking idiot. Correlations are patterns. Where there are patterns, predictions can be made. If there is a correlation between infidelity and promiscuity then depending on the strength of that correlation we can make rationally justified prediction. You fucking idiot. Do you understand that this is a logical question? Correlations are patterns. Patterns make predictions. Depending on the strength of that correlation or pattern between properties it can be rationally justified to…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:38 AM
2

The idea that men get judged for their number of sexual partners is true to some degree, but our society doesn't penalize them the same way that women are. If you mean that women are penalized because some men (those like me) think slutting around is disgusting and therefore avoid sluts then that is a penalty that is a consequence of choosing to be a slut and not any penalty I ought to concern myself with. I see no reason to be an activist to make other men change their standards to meet what, i…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:30 AM
1

You're projecting. Some people just find slutting around a disgusting habit and therefore do not find the people who engage in that behavior as suitable enough for a friendship or as mates. You can speculate all you want, but as someone who doesn't find sluts to be attractive, I offer first hand evidence that I am not at all a person of low self-confidence.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:21 AM
1

why would someone's past sexual history affect your current attraction? (assuming that they have a clean bill of health). I don't know. I'm just not attracted to them. Do you like chocolate? Why do you like chocolate? Do you find some things disgusting? Why do you find them disgusting? Preferences don't always have an answer. And I'm sure people can make all kinds of social theories about the reasons I think slutting around is a disgusting habit. I just do and I find the women that do it unattra…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:16 AM
3

Oh look here. The fucking idiot retard thinks he made an intelligent point. Isn't that cute? Except in science (yes, science) there are methods by which you can conclude on the strength of a correlation and I can tell you quite simply that your example is so goddamn retarded and obviously spurious that it is an just not really even worth commenting on but I just wanted to point to it and laugh because you actually thought it meant anything.
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:08 AM
3

You're a fucking idiot. Correlations are predictors. Depending on the strength of the correlation it can serve as extremely strong justification to not concern yourself with promiscuous people if you desire someone who is not prone to infidelity. If we took your completely fucking retarded line of reasoning then we couldn't make any kind of rational judgments on any of things we draw correlations on in psychology and sociology. But we do... That's a lot of what the sciences do. You're arguing ag…
/r/MensRights07/03/15 04:04 AM
-2

I'm a liberal and I share your disgust with that moron Russel Brand.
/r/MensRights02/02/15 11:59 PM
3

No. They're not new puritans. Think of the children! it's a family newspaper!
/r/MensRights22/01/15 06:29 AM
8

I just thought it was necessary to say hello. I'm an atheist, progressive, pro-lifer. I'm often overlooked and no one seems to be aware that we exist. So when the opportunity arises I just make it a point to express that I am not a unicorn. In your comment you've condensed big arguments into a few sentences. I am not interested in a debate, as I said before I just wanted to take this opportunity to make people aware that my "kind" exists. So you say extinguishing a person isn't what you're talki…
/r/MensRights21/01/15 07:36 PM
1

If they actually had sexual relations with the minor then indeed a crime was committed. You can't wish away what is or isn't a crime by the magic of your personal opinion.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:29 PM
2

Illuminati? o_O
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:16 PM
2

Did he have to pay child support? Because that would be ridiculous. It would be like giving someone a gun and being responsible if they used it to kill someone.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:10 PM
2

Not everyone thinks that extinguishing a person is a women's health issue. That includes not everyone on left, as well. This includes me.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 03:01 PM
1

I think even feminists agree that "feminism" is not a science-based world view. Some might argue there is 'scientific evidence' that supports notions of rape culture and patriarchy. 'Evidence' in the line of psychology and social sciences such as their 'studies' and all that.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:58 AM
5

Do your fucking job.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 12:15 AM
0

If it's a direct result of Affirmative Action or Affirmative Action like policies, then yes, probably.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 07:06 PM
1

It is about the many thousands of victims who don’t get justice at all Can someone explain to me what divine knowledge this is. How do they know how many rape victims don't get justice? It reminds me of those "under-reported" rape claims. If they're not reported... THEN HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?! I could just claim more men are raped than women... they're just part of the unreported incidents. Yup.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 04:27 PM
4

Just because there's not a lot of minorities in government or an industry doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem. That's a fallacy. Esp. when it comes to a democratic republic of elected representatives in congress. This is the reflection of what the electorate wanted. That's not a problem. You can say voter turnout for women might be a problem... but women were the majority of voters in 2012 and that didn't put 50% of women in congress, now did it? Believe it or not women can make their own…
/r/MensRights08/01/15 03:22 PM
1

something something under-reported rape something something patriarchy /s In all seriousness though, where does it say 1 in 53?
/r/MensRights02/01/15 12:15 PM
2

Should post as the female. Word it as such as well you "didn't know what happened" and before you knew you were "down to your underwear" and felt "uncomfortable" throughout the ordeal.
/r/MensRights02/01/15 12:07 PM
1

fascinating. Thanks for the links.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 03:58 PM
2

They're both pretty good arguments but relative to suffering I think autonomy is weaker. Yeah, the traumatized adult is another instance of suffering. You could also make the argument that it feels good to fit in with a cut wiener. I don't think those pleasures make up for the instance of pain inflicted on the infant.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:32 AM
1

indubitably
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:09 AM
1

I have no idea where you got that I'm pro-circumcision. I simply said that I don't think bodily autonomy is a good argument against circumcision. I said undue suffering is a better argument against it.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:08 AM
0

well the reason in my philosophy it's wrong to outright murder someone is not really about suffering. It's about maximizing pleasure. If you kill someone you're minimizing the pleasure. That's wrong. The idea is pretty straight forward, the devil is in the details. The idea is that one must act according to what minimizes as much suffering for as many as possible and maximizes as much pleasure for as many as possible. It's called the dictate of utility.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:05 AM
1

Haha well no position is immune to irrational rebuttals.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:03 AM
0

lol is it really? I don't know. It makes perfect sense to me. It's the rule I live by. I try to minimize suffering as much for as many as possible. Seems like a pretty good rule to live by to me.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 01:01 AM
1

"he doesn't remember it" is not an argument against the immediate suffering. immediate suffering means you're causing undue pain to something. That's clearly wrong.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 12:58 AM
1

eventually I'm going to wake up and suffer. If I'm dead, however. Sure, you can do whatever you want to my body if you don't cause emotional suffering to my loved ones due to desecration.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 12:57 AM
1

There is no self at the age that circumcision takes place. There's no self in how science has developed tests for testing. There's simply a thing that we can understand feels pain in some fashion. Suffering is just simply the better argument against circumcision.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 12:31 AM
1

There's tons of utility in separating them. Autonomy, at least as far as I'm familiar, has its roots in deontology ie kantian ethics. Utilitarians primarily concern themselves with suffering. It's useful to separate because autonomy usually implies the thing has some kind of rational agency... this is from the most well defined interpretation of autonomy. Babies and animals don't have autonomy for this reason. So if we're to justify not doing heinous things to them then it's useful to concentrat…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:25 PM
1

They're all related. Suffering is just more fundamental. This is what's aligned with my philosophy. I can argue against undue suffering better than I can "violations" of bodily autonomy, esp. when it comes to babies where we violate bodily autonomy all the time either for the better, worse, or for neutral reasons like moving them from one place to another.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:18 PM
1

well I don't know what's the best "tort." I'm just giving the better moral argument. To spell it out, we are allowed to interrupt and violate the autonomy/will of infants in regards to their own bodies, where it will remove them from harm or injury. You said that. I agree with it. The factor that determines which action can be used to violate the will/autonomy of the infant depends upon if it's to prevent it from undue suffering. Suffering is what is most fundamental here... even in your own arg…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 10:52 PM
-1

You know, I'm a big fan of brevity. To spell it out, we are allowed to interrupt and violate the autonomy/will of infants in regards to their own bodies, where it will remove them from harm or injury. Which is why I'm saying bodily autonomy is a weak/bad argument against circumcision. The better argument is against undue suffering since that's what's more fundamental in your entire argument that follows.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 10:41 PM
-5

wtf does this have to do with anything? I'm talking about bodily autonomy being a good argument against circumcision. It's not. Babies do not have autonomy over their own bodies because they are not rational agents. To say you were "circumcised against your will" is asinine because you had no "will." Am I being downvoted because people do not understand what bodily autonomy means?
/r/MensRights26/09/14 02:45 PM
-2

I'm not sure how that's supposed to make a moral argument for babie's bodily autonomy. Babies aren't rational agents. They deserve extra protection and bodily autonomy is not a good argument. Undue suffering is better.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 02:21 PM
-9

Meh. You were a baby. You were also fed against your will. Your bodily autonomy is virtually meaningless at this stage, morally speaking. So... it's more of an undue suffering issue for me. Like, babies shouldn't be subjected to undue suffering. That just seems blatantly obvious to me.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:46 AM
9

When I was preteen, I was bullied by women. It was an emotional abuse more than anything. This bullying continued throughout grade school. Actually, I'm still being emotionally bullied by women all the time. Perhaps I'm a masochist. Or perhaps it's because I don't kowtow to their demands like a nice little mangina.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 11:43 AM
9

Why would that matter?
/r/MensRights20/09/14 11:06 PM
10

How hard is it to click the block button. Yes, death threats are serious but from the article it's clear the dude made no death threats. So why didn't she just block him?
/r/MensRights20/09/14 10:30 PM
47

criticism is not abuse, twitter.
/r/MensRights20/09/14 09:44 PM
6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_MYyc-PtH4
/r/MensRights17/09/14 01:00 PM
1

It's a common misconception that an appeal is basically a request for the higher court to double check the evidence and see if they reach the same conclusion. I wasn't really assuming that. But, your comment did add to the context of the case you cited. So yeah it helped in the explanation. Thanks.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 01:44 AM
0

I call these types of arguments "going nuclear" (borrowed from Dr. Stephen Law). I agree they're not really a fallacy but really weak arguments. I would say that a lot of times you can probably point them out as red herrings or non sequiters, though.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:53 PM
5

I think this is good rhetorical advice. Strictly speaking, it's rational enough not to consider the argument any further once a fallacy is uncovered, but it's hardly beneficial to persuade anyone. What I like to do is respond by giving an example of the fallacy. Like, if someone appeals to popularity, then you just make up an appeal to popularity on the spot that appeals to the interest of the audience. Then you show how the arguments are analogous by highlighting the fallacy without being expli…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:39 PM
1

That seems like a unjust denial of appeal. Is this different from criminal court? I would think that in either civil or criminal cases if the foundation for a verdict is found to be logically flawed that would be cause to re-evaluate. I know near to jack about law, though. Morally, it seems questionable.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 11:35 PM
0

denying white privilege is similar in strategy to denying the holocaust. There's no reason to engage you any longer.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:58 PM
0

not to be offensive but you are a mental deficient. I mean that as a point of fact. You should probably remedy that.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:11 AM
0

Seems pretty absurd to argue that privilege doesn't exist. You could argue about the degree to which it doesn't exist with respect to whatever group but it seems pretty absurd to say it doesn't exist altogether. If you understand what a privilege is then you should understand what one means by the qualifier "white." This would mean that a privilege exist because of the race of being white or appearing white. If racial prejudice exist then by a simple matter of logic privilege must exist. It's ju…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 02:39 AM
5

I see the patriarchy as a framework of historical interpretation. What makes a framework of historical interpretation better than another is how well it explains historical events, and how well it can shape policy to make things better for the future. I don't really buy patriarchy as a good framework of historical interpretation. I tend to sort of mish-mash different frameworks of interpretation when it comes to history. Sometimes it's interesting to analyze events from a marxist perspective, ot…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:58 PM
0

You're saying we only care about 2 & 3 and somehow that's a "privilege"? Do we care about 1 too? The media can't really sensationalize these sorts of crime sense both the perp and victim are of the same race. Hispanic on black is not as concerning as white on black crime. This is also white privilege. The words "white privilege" are also meaningless if you have to explain what they mean with every use. You're not actually saying anything with these words. It's an ambiguous argument from emotion.…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:15 PM
0

This person claimed the left wanted Zimmerman to be white. I assume by left it is meant left-leaning media. The reason the media wanted Zimmerman to be white is because if he were not white then people would not have cared. The fact people cared is white privilege. Had it been dealt in the media as Hispanic on Black crime, then it wouldn't have mattered. This is an expression of White Privilege, ie no one cares about the violent crime within the minority groups. The point people make when they s…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 12:50 AM
-2

I don't know why that matters to my point. I've seen unaltered pictures of Zimmerman and he still looks white enough to be a beneficiary of white privilege. And... even if he isn't... the claim you made about the media "brightening his face" to make him appear more white would go hand in hand with my point. The media made him appear white and people reacted as if he were white. That just shows you only need to appear white to benefit from white privilege. So I really do not understand your retar…
/r/MensRights06/09/14 10:59 PM
-7

This is a really bad canard thrown around in right-wing circles: "herp derp Zimmerman isn't really white!" It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to be a beneficiary of white privilege is to appear white. Because the benefits of white privilege is in how other people treat you. If it can be presumed that Zimmerman is white, and it can because he looks white, then he can therefore benefit from white privilege. And no one of any fucking intelligence can deny that there exist white privileg…
/r/MensRights06/09/14 07:13 PM
1

This reminds me of that Jim Jefferies story, "well, you just made this rape really awkward!"
/r/MensRights06/09/14 01:37 PM
3

Does the job of "gym teacher" have a slightly higher percentage of lesbians than some other jobs? Probably. But it's stupid and harmful to assume that most gym teachers are lesbians, and to further an inaccurate and offensive stereotype. If this is true, then it would be a rational presumption to make when you encounter a female gym teacher. The fact that people can use stereotypes as a justification to do bad things to the stereotyped groups is in no way a good argument that stereotypes are "ba…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 08:37 PM
4

I disagree. There's nothing "good" or "bad" about stereotypes. Stereotypes have explanations. That's what I'm referring to and wondering aloud about. You're being fucking ridiculous. There's no reason this isn't a place to have a conversation about the possible explanations for certain gender-related stereotypes. And personally I think only an idiot far-left marxist dingbat would think that stereotypes have a blanket negative effect. And your stereotype is an interesting one for non-gender speci…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 08:10 PM
1

It was a question. I'm wondering if it's reflective of something that has an explanation. I'm not implying lesbians are bad or it's bad to be a PE teacher and lesbian.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 07:00 PM
-5

PE Teacher... lesbian. Honestly, who here hasn't had a female PE Teacher that wasn't a lesbian? What is with that, anyway?
/r/MensRights05/09/14 06:35 PM
0

I've listened to Joe Rogan on occasion. Recently, Joe Rogan interviewed Sam Harris. Relative to Sam Harris, Joe Rogan isn't a very deep thinker. But, really who would disagree with that? Joe Rogan doesn't claim to be some genius guy as far as I know. So I'm not going to criticize him for not being as smart as the people he interviews. Joe Rogan says some dumb shit sometimes but overall I think he's an affable, curious guy. I think he's a pretty OK dude, not an academic or deep thinker or anythin…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 06:09 PM
0

I'm not aware of that. If Joe Rogan said that then that was a pretty stupid thing for him to say.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 05:49 PM
0

If you can imagine this as a sort of equilibrium, then you can see that by protecting only women from harassment, then the harassment will just shift toward more men in even greater proportion. So if the goal was to cut down harassment, then this doesn't really solve the problem; it just shifts it away from women. I think it's easy to conceive it as an equilibrium, although this may require more justification. So, as a practical means to cut down harassment this probably doesn't work. I don't th…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 05:04 PM
17

He was raped (legally) and now has to pay child support for the product of that rape. Really...? Really?!
/r/MensRights02/09/14 09:12 PM
1

I'm not going to respond to any further comments. Because if you don't understand after this, then obviously you are blinded from understanding by some sort of weird faith. Why does it matter how many risks were taken before the rape? Risks aren't illegal. Rape is. Because there does exist an area of responsibility for ones own safety. Us adults understand the world is not a Utopia paradise where rape can be annihilated by "teaching people not to rape" (god the fucking absurdity and misandry bui…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 11:48 AM
1

It does reflect it accurately for people that don't have IQs in the 70s. It does reflect it accurately for people that understand what analogies are.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:06 PM
1

Asking how drunk a person is implies that if they hadn't been drunk, they wouldn't have been raped, and therefore that their choices led to the rape. That simple. No. No it isn't that simple. You retard. It's someone looking for context. Trying to analyze the situation and understand what risks were taken. That only implies that to you because you apparently don't understand people and probably suck at interpersonal communication. So if you're going to someone, beaten, bloody, and terrified, tel…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 10:02 PM
1

It might be harmful for idiots that don't understand the scope of the analogy. Analogies don't have to be perfect at every level, if they were perfect at every level they wouldn't be analogies; they'd be equivalent.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:18 PM
2

I didn't say it was everyone but it certainly is the majority of people that give sympathy despite the circumstances. But the first "response" as in verbally... even if it's the question of how drunk were they isn't an indication that they are blaming the victim. If I got mugged people might first ask what I was doing in so and so bad area at 4am. That doesn't mean they don't sympathize with me. It doesn't mean that they are blaming me. It doesn't mean that they are contributing to mugging cultu…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 09:17 PM
3

Goddamn wtf is wrong with you? You don't see the sympathy for rape victims (even when they do things risky) because you are fucking blinded by some kind of weird ideology. I have no dog in this fight and it's obvious to me that rape victims get sympathy regardless of circumstances leading to their rape.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:53 AM
5

Do you really wanna be this nit picky? Just replace seat belts with a more suitable analogy (there are plenty). It's an argument by analogy to show how ridiculous it is to rant and rave against locks to prevent thievery etc. It's not dumb to address cultural issues surrounding what causes thievery but it is dumb to rave against locks. It's fucking absurd and stupid and ridiculous and why are we even arguing about this?
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:50 AM
2

How did his video get DMCA'd? Isn't it fair use? I like Mundane Matt. edit: oh god a game about depression. That just fuckin' figures.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 02:54 AM
1

Humans often really, really like splitting into groups and having a tribe to belong to. And that's not necessarily an irrational thing to do when there are biological differences. Therefore, it is not a good argument to use in favor of abolition of gender stereotypes or racial categories.
/r/MensRights21/08/14 02:29 AM
1

You can see in my comment history. I responded to a couple. Feel free to scoff at me for not being civil in my discourse with them. But honestly I think they deserve it for defending this shit.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 01:43 PM
1

In the top thread there are various people defending this absurd, grotesque injustice. It's just outrageous. Not hard to find them.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 12:53 PM
2

You actually have to dig around for them. Sorry about that. Thankfully the top voted comments are from people that understand the injustice.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 11:16 AM
2

Affirmative Action is the result of minority groups utilizing government to institutionally oppress Caucasian men. This invalidates the notion that minority groups don't have the power to oppress non-minority groups. The notion that minority groups cannot oppress is not sound. This sort of language only serves to legitimize oppression over the white male casualties whose only crime is having white ancestors and being men. The argument isn't whether or not white men can be oppressed... because th…
/r/MensRights15/08/14 12:03 AM
0

Yeah. I'm just not all that disgusted by it since I'm not sexually concerned with men.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 05:55 PM
-4

I do shame sluts. Other women shame sluts. I shame them because I find it gross. It's no different than an obese person proud that he ate a dozen of donuts even though he's grossly fat. Sex is a vice. I shame people who eat too much, drink too heavily, have sex too often. It shows an enormous lack of character in my view. I will not respect sluts, boozers, junkies, etc. They have every right to be disgusting all they want - just don't expect me to respect them for it.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 12:40 AM
2

Isn't patriarchy in this sense more of a framework for understanding history rather than any sort of "real" causal phenomenon, sort of like how you can adopt a Marxist framework when understanding history as well. I mean history isn't a science, and this doesn't seem to be a social science theory so much as an idealized tool to examine history. It's not necessarily a "better" tool for understanding history over say "Matriarchy." Which is what MRAs do quite often and make pretty successful critic…
/r/MensRights06/08/14 03:30 AM
3

Awesome. Thanks so much.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 09:25 PM
7

Thanks for the link. Sure I can take some less dense reads too.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 08:27 PM
10

Is there something wrong with asking someone for sources? I understand how to google but I'm interested in Grailums recommendations.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 07:50 PM
5

Whoa. I never thought of it like that. You just blew my mind.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 07:05 PM
2

That's an interesting idea. I don't really follow your logic though. Couldn't a feminist simply appeal to patriarchal oppression? I mean couldn't they say that women could objectify men if the patriarchy were dismantled?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 07:02 PM
3

That's interesting. Do you have any citations for this?
/r/MensRights05/08/14 07:00 PM
13

Changing the language is very common. People seems to think it's OK to pin "feminism" on "equality" as if they are synonymous. It's a really shitty way to try to shoehorn their ideology into the cultural zeitgeist, bypassing the marketplace of ideas. So shit.
/r/MensRights05/08/14 06:58 PM
1

Feminism is a closed market of ideas, or women only One of those feminist ideas is that "Good Men" ally with those ideas of which they are denied input Society is expected to adopt these ideas. A rational person can infer from this that the feminists that hold to the aforementioned three points appear to think that only women hold good ideas when it comes to social justice. This is false, obviously. And because this is false the only thing a rational person can do is fight against this brand of …
/r/MensRights14/07/14 01:45 PM
3

I like how you're downvoted for calling this amoral whore the amoral whore she is. I'm sorry, did I jump into retard land where whores don't exist or may exist but are not attributed to women that commit adultery with two guys in two days? Also, as a decent human being I take issue with these claims that these guys were "lucky." They weren't lucky. It's incredibly easy to fuck amoral whores. You just have to be an amoral scumbag yourself with no dignity. In the wise words of Bill Burr: "I'm talk…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 01:15 PM
6

why not both?
/r/MensRights23/02/14 10:32 AM
11

Those texts are probably going to save you.
/r/MensRights18/02/14 04:40 AM
0

You know. All these personal attacks are tiresome.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:08 PM
0

Well that was a whole lot of nothing. The links about violence against transsexuals and transgenders is heart-wrenching, though. I'm sorry it's so rampant. And I'm sorry to say that people do extend their own sense of gender and prescribe it to others using their own criteria. I'm sorry that you don't like that but it's true. It's one of the primary ways we form gender roles. The more interesting part of your post is this: You are arguing that trans* people should just accept transphobia, bigtor…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:27 PM
1

Transsexual are outside norm. The obligation is for the transsexuals to make him or herself known. That is what is polite to do. The rich man example is irrelevant because that doesn't have anything to do with stuff that plays into sexual preference like gender and sex identity.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:03 PM
1

I know that after hearing the truth about how most people in society view you, you have to lash out at someone. I understand in this circumstance it has to me, and I'm OK with that. I just think that now you can go out into life with a brand new perspective and understanding. And I'm happy for that. And even if you don't, at least you've been exposed to it.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:43 PM
0

Yes it is. I'm not really sure how you can say that. I'm just telling you how most people are. It's not a personal view. It's evident in the gender binary. Do you ask EVERYONE YOU KNOW every time you want to do something, in case someone disagrees, doesn't approve or maybe doesn't like you as a person? Do you live for this? Do you never do something that society as a whole doesn't approve of at 100% (ie everything you could ever do is probably there, given society is not homogenous)? If what I'm…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:39 PM
1

Ah, but remember how I said gender identity informs our sexual orientation? Yeah. That's why I said that. It's pretty important. It really isn't as black and white as you portray it. Like most things in this universe, it's pretty nuanced.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:36 PM
2

This isn't like creationism. You might not believe it but many do that genders are predominantly social constructs. Therefore these notions are arbitrary and you can't say they are ignorant or stupid because they differ from yours. It's like when you like chocolate and calling someone that likes vanilla stupid.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:09 PM
1

I think it was mostly because your comment was coddling someone who was advocating clearly immoral behavior (lying to people and foisting an unwanted lifestyle on them).
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:07 PM
0

My boyfriend is straight. To most people he is not. This is not a personal view. All I am doing is informing you of what you already know. If you're fine with people thinking you're a female even if they had the full story you wouldn't be to them then that's fine. Live your life that way. It makes no difference to me. I just don't think it's wise to delude yourself into thinking that society, as it is now, actually considers you a woman and your boyfriend straight with all the facts.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:05 PM
1

but people who don't know consider me "a woman" And I don't like being the guy to have break it to you but if they knew you were a transsexual they would consider you a transsexual-woman and not a woman and some of them wouldn't even consider you a woman but a transsexual man. So the assumptions they draw may please you and that's OK but it's definitely not OK when you enter into an intimate world with them and continue to masquerade. Because to them, you are masquerading as a potential mate. Yo…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:02 PM
1

Most people do not consider you a woman. I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. But gender identity usually extends beyond merely personal description but outward for prescription. They consider you a woman-transsexual, but not a woman. I know it probably hurts but sometimes we have to play the cards we are dealt and that's how society functions now. So if they find out after the fact there is a sense of betrayal but understanding. People are not dicks and they understand why you don't t…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:55 PM
0

Not sure how that's relevant but OK. It's important not to overlook how in determining sexual orientation that gender is also important. It's how people can develop orientations toward transsexuals and transgenders etc. You're right that "sexual orientation" is a bit of a misnomer but people usually realize how it all overlaps.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:52 PM
1

And I explained why it was that in another comment. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go in my comment history. What do you have to prove? You're right? Right? So why do you care what some "not even wrong" guy thinks, eh? Must have hit a little insecurity somewhere. Not so confident anymore, huh? It's OK. It turns out the world is pretty complex and you don't know everything. Funny how that works.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:46 PM
1

Gender identity is important in informing sexual orientation. That's why by lying to them about their own gender identity they are not respecting their partners orientation or gender identity. Hope that clears it up. Also, most normal people ascribe others gender based on their gender identity. It's virtually the same criteria. This doesn't hold true for transsexuals but that's fairly obvious.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:43 PM
1

Sure. That's definitely plausible. My point was just that my views on the matter were irrelevant because I'm arguing from the perspective that they are social constructs. I could reformulate it to fit the other way but most of the people that don't buy my argument don't view gender that way anyway. So it's more prudent to work from their assumptions.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:41 PM
1

Yeah you're somewhat right. But it's typical to dismiss someone that sees gender as predominantly biologically determined. That's what I was predicting to be the soon to be ad hominem. I think gender is biological therefore my argument can be dismissed I'm stupid derp. But yeah it was more like a strawman.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:39 PM
-1

riiiiiiiiiight. mkay
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:08 PM
-1

The implication of the comment was an opinion of yours that I am "not even wrong" in this sense (which you stated explicitly in a previous comment). Obviously, that's what I was referring to.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 02:24 PM
-2

You're entitled to the opinion that the argument is not valid but that doesn't make it true. You're free to run away.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 01:23 PM
1

I won't point out that if you actually believed that all aspects gender are only a social construct and therefore not real I'm arguing from the point of view that gender is a social construct because that is commonly accepted by absurd, morally reprehensible individuals that think it's OK to deceive people into sleeping with you. Also, the notion that because gender is a social construct then one cannot deceive by pretending to be a member of the potential mate pool of someone and therefore be r…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 12:56 PM
1

Probably because your original comment was fucking boring. I'm aware of the proper terminology. I never said they were the same. I said gender and sex matters in sexual orientation. You can deny this fact all you want but everyone with at least a single brain cell is laughing at the feeble attempts.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 12:22 PM
2

unsubstantiated opinions are tedious. I believe I substantiated why it is wrong to lie to someone who does not share your views on gender so that they can rape them. My comment was about people (apparently like you) calling trans* people as not "real" men or women. This has nothing to do with me personally. This is about transsexuals thinking it is OK to lie to someone and disrespecting their partners, lying to them, effectively raping them and thinking that's OK. Gender as a social construction…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 11:57 AM
0

Do you feel obligated to disclose every part of you on the first date? Only the parts that if I do not disclose them, would force my partner to take on a lifestyle that he or she did not choose. So, it is in a very real sense a form of rape. I am most definitely against this type of rape. Do you feel it's a requirement of someone who had Scoliosis to announce this to any potential suitors ? Or is a person who was born with a third nipple also obligated to report this to any potential person they…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 11:25 AM
1

Yes. It is just as valid. If, as people say, gender identity is a social construction, then it is quite arbitrary what one person means by gender over another. So, if a trans person dates someone without revealing their sex change, not only is it a lie but it is not respecting the just-as-valid views on gender of their partner, assuming their partner's views are not in line with theres. I think the sorts of trans* people that advocate for lying to their partners are aware of this and try to argu…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:43 AM
1

That's a false analogy and absolute nonsense, obviously.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 06:23 AM
2

I deleted my previous post because it was too inflammatory and I want to be as clear as possible. Being drunk != being passed out. Being drunk in and of itself is not determinative of nonconsent or non-agency. Hope that helps!
/r/MensRights14/02/14 05:47 AM
3

It's almost as shitty as someone might feel after having been lied to by someone they trusted. Someone they trusted to share everything with and to also respect their values, beliefs, gender identity, and sexual orientation. It's almost as shitty as what Xisan is advocating for.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:19 AM
4

I'm going to go ahead and make a judgment call on you after reading this thread. You need to stop this. If you want us to respect your notions of gender identity then you need to respect others' as well. You cannot lie to someone about your gender identity when you know it conflicts with theirs and how it overlaps in sexual orientation. What you're advocating for is horrible and you need to stop. I certainly will not support any trans* group if an issue in their platform is to lie to others and …
/r/MensRights14/02/14 04:17 AM
6

a person’s state of drunkenness is not in and of itself determinative of nonconsent and non-agency in regards to his/her actions That's why it's not a contradiction. Being drunk, in and of itself, is not reason enough to be considered unable to consent. The only fallacy here is the critics that fail to notice that being drunk and not drunk are not two states but two extremes of a spectrum. The fact you didn't realize this should probably ring some alarm bells about your reading comprehension or …
/r/MensRights14/02/14 03:49 AM
9

We should start a ribbon campaign: Be a real mom! don't beat your kids! just like those campaigns that tell men not be rapists.
/r/MensRights10/02/14 09:24 PM
5

There's a fantastic movie I watched recently that involves this situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_(2012_film)
/r/MensRights03/02/14 04:09 PM
1

Oh wow it got the gender studies department shut down? if that is true then that is fucking epic. and I don't use that word lightly.
/r/MensRights31/01/14 09:05 AM
1

but if it's inevitable then we don't need to make things equal. it is inevitable. the question is weird.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 11:31 PM
2

Does biology make equality ultimately inevitable? Yes. Yes, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't make things as equal as we can. No. What? If biology makes equality inevitable... then it doesn't make sense to say "Yes, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't make things as equal as we can" Because equality is inevitable.
/r/MensRights20/01/14 11:11 PM
1

Whoa. The way that gender researcher knocked American research was sort of anger-inducing. edit: I just want to add holy hell that was a great show. Supremely interesting to see his journey and the reactions the scientists give to the other viewpoints. It really shows off the adversarial nature of it. Really cool.
/r/MensRights16/01/14 04:47 AM
2

wow holy shit you're an idiot.
/r/MensRights24/12/13 12:00 AM
2

i've been watching dr. phil recently. i must say... this guy gives some pretty solid advice on his show. he gets shit on too much imo.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:07 AM
1

I like that host's attitude. She's like "i don't give a fuck... this is a job i need money. what bitch you wanna fight about it?"
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:01 AM
2

what is the big fucking deal here... It's dumb to put up an anonymous rape accusation form. the brigading was just a demonstration to show how fucking retarded it is. there's nothing despicable about it. It was a mockery of a mockery of rape. If anything, the college should be held accountable for making a mockery of rape.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 12:54 AM
4

In reality, the law makes sure insurance companies can't force women to pay more for health care just because they are women. dat spin
/r/MensRights20/12/13 12:45 AM
2

Sugar and spice ... Snails and puppy dog tails and so forth.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:51 AM
2

I feel dumber having read that.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:46 AM
4

in the video, the woman assaulted and battered that man first.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 07:43 AM
16

Yes... There is a clear underrepresentation of me in that banner. RIOT!
/r/MensRights02/11/13 09:05 PM
1

I'm actually only an MRA because of feminism. I do see it as a direct push back to female supremacy. Otherwise, in terms of equality issues I'm egalitarian. So, yeah. I'm anti-feminist. What of it?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 04:19 AM
2

I don't know. If there were an internet porn mass disappearance of some kind or I lost the ability to imagine and masturbate I'd probably be "chasing dames" or committing suicide by cop.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 04:15 AM
2

I call them Redguards, because I'm edgy.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 04:09 AM
1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjOsEjJIgJ4 I'm sure they could have compressed his breasts in the machine. You know in that video... I noticed he says that they separate the men from the women in the waiting rooms to make "everyone more comfortable" according to the doctor. Wtf.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 04:05 AM
1

I think they are two distinct ideas. They are defined this way for convenience in academic study I think. So that when one refers to gender we know this is a social science perspective and when we say sex we know this is a biological perspective. But I agree that there is no real separation in the real world. Ideally for study and clarity in conversation we can say they are distinct but factually it's all a jumbled mess of nature and nurture, probably mostly nature. It reminds me of race/ethnici…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 03:56 AM
2

Again, I wouldn't say feminism only fights for women. Neither would feminists. But I, however, would say that. And I say that knowing full well that it's a generalization, but an apt one -- despite your anecdotes.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 03:41 AM
1

Remember that video where Bloom denied the existence of entropy? Fucking hilarious. It was hard to take him seriously after that stupidity. TJ actually defended him by saying that physics PhD candidates emailed him and defended Bloom without sharing any of their points of course. I'm surprised the Bloom entropy-denier thing didn't go more viral.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:33 AM
3

we learn from the best I suppose. professional victims and all (feminists)
/r/MensRights27/09/13 09:22 PM
1

Uh, I'd say the definition of rapist here is poorly worded for the implication that man is only capable of raping. It may not be intentional and a throwback from non-contemporary usage of the definition of "man" as opposed to more popular usage of "mankind" etc. but it is what it is and ought to be changed unless they want to give the wrong impression that only men can rape. And still, you want to scrape again as if the definition of "man" is the problem here. It's not really the crux of the iss…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:52 PM
3

"define:rape" doesn't define rape but "define:rapist" still defines it. Weird.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:48 PM
1

Yeah it's weird. I've seen google definitions pull a lot from wiktionary but even wiktionary defines it as a person
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:43 PM
6

You're scraping pretty hard to justify a poorly worded definition.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:40 PM
2

Isn't there something very telling, though, about the fact there is a tendency to minimize personal responsibility here and lob the responsibility on society to teach men not to rape? I mean, in virtually any other scenario I can think of society is generally realistic and will talk about personal responsibility and the responsibility of society to take measures to reduce incidences of whatever threat may exist. But strangely, in the instance of rape it just seems to me that they think men are r…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 12:04 PM
1

I was just having a conversation with some of /r/MensRights ... ahem opponents recently about this very subject. Of course, thunderf00t made it sound a lot more eloquent but the central thesis here is personal responsibility matters too.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 11:52 AM
3

According to the stats in the sources listed here for Australia. Apparently only 1/3 for men. So it appears to be factually accurate. But like Hanshen mentioned, it's not a trivial "minority" at all.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 11:01 AM
2

Is that true? I'm not so sure. I certainly haven't read up on it. I'm even more unsure what the statistics say about Australia. edit: useful information
/r/MensRights27/09/13 10:57 AM
9

I just call up Patriarchy HQ and get them to send me a town car and a suit.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 05:41 PM
2

The obvious pain endured, and autonomy violated, on the neonate by the circumcision process outweighs the supposed benefits that are grossly embellished. If we were to be realistic here, then we'd have to admit the only reason parents agree to it is because of tradition and the stigma of being uncircumcised. That is wrong.
/r/MensRights23/09/13 02:26 AM
1

I can't even believe you went this far. This dude is truly obsessed with defending this woman for some reason.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 11:31 PM
3

I just posted this as a mildly interesting kind of whatever. I'm not really expecting any kind of action to be taken... unless people decide for themselves not to read it based on this, I don't mind either way. I just thought it was kind of interesting.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 07:02 PM
12

In terms of the example I provided, I was talking more about the Bill Maher section. In terms of the Sean thing, I actually did learn something there. I thought he was saying that it's OK to hit a woman in situations where she beats on a man. I didn't know his opinion was that it's OK to hit a woman just to shut her up, which is clearly pretty sexist. But, he may think it's OK to treat a man that way as well and just be a plain asshole. The Bill Maher section was just patently false. Bill Maher …
/r/MensRights18/09/13 10:40 AM
2

If I remember correctly from my toxicology classes, poison isn't really a technical term. A toxin I think would refer to a compound or w/e given to an organism that adversely affects it in some way either fatally or not. The embryo/fetus/whatever developing in her was part of her and he poisoned her in order to basically injure that part of her. That seems like the definition of poisoning to me. Maybe the law has a more rigorous terminology for "poisoning" but colloquially it seems to be an apt …
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:33 PM
-2

That all seems very unlikely... It erupted from him telling his friends. Seems to get the ball rolling in something like this it would take at least a few days and it just seems so implausible that they wouldn't wash their garments (or junk) in the mean time. I doubt the prosecution had any kind of hard evidence. I think the prosecution threw all their weight on her to make her cave for a plea deal. That's just my opinion though. Of course, I'm not saying women don't rape men because certainly t…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:26 PM
1

DNA? Did she spit in a cup? Seriously man... How would they get DNA?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 05:12 PM
-6

How could they possibly get enough evidence to convict her? Isn't it her word against his, the ex-boyfriend that has motive to lie to get back at his ex? and the article states she said her hand may have brushed his penis once. That's hardly a confession. Also brushing isn't groping. This makes no sense. What kind of evidence could the prosecution possibly have in a case like this? Did they find his cum in her mouth? I mean come on... I'm not taking sides I just can't understand why she would pl…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 04:37 PM
1

Yeah, that makes more sense. Thanks.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:07 AM
3

I don't get it... So this is considered a "feminist game" because it's got some "real lesbians" in it? wtf...
/r/MensRights02/09/13 11:12 AM
22

Maybe not related to the link... but could you imagine how fucking lame a feminist-friendly game would be? Holy shit.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 11:27 PM
4

I'm not sure what the author's reasons are for boycotting "TV," but I can guarantee you that the author uses some other means to zombie out and take a breather when he or she is trying to unwind... mindlessly surfing the web perhaps? Is he or she going to boycott "the web" now?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:04 PM
20

Being a mother is the hardest job in the world don't ya know. I heard it on Oprah.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 06:00 PM
4

Far more genetic mutations that express functional problems and diseases occur on the X chromosomes. These are X-linked diseases and do affect males disproportionately due to men not having another X chromosome to mask the dominant allele on the X. This makes for a lot of women carriers for X-linked diseases and a lot of diseased men. I'm not sure if that was her argument, but even if it were it doesn't make for a very good one. As for sex in animals being an "accident": it's obviously not an ac…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 05:55 PM
12

Yeah this scene made me super uncomfortable when I first watched this movie.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 08:06 PM
3

She's pro-pedo. Wow... Feminists let me tell ya. Wow.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:59 PM
1

That's pretty fucked up.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:58 PM
1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1940s
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:33 AM
1

This isn't a formal exchange. You're welcome to drop the douchey greetings and farewells.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 09:24 PM
1

Put your hands up. Say something like, "I'm very sorry but I am just not comfortable giving hugs and kisses. How about a handshake?" Touchy people like that are just trying to express themselves and assume other people are like them. When you make it clear you're not like that but still leave options of touch open... whether it be on the shoulder or a simple handshake, then it will go over much smoothly. Unless you've tried that already and she still doesn't get it. ONLY THEN should you pull out…
/r/MensRights24/09/12 10:10 PM
0

Actually, that is horrible advice. "Don't touch me" or "Stop touching me" may be direct and enforceable but it is definitely not polite. Touchy people will find it offensive. The best thing to do is just explain that you're not a touchy-feely person and you're more comfortable with handshakes or something like that. Wow... "Don't touch me" seriously you thought that was OK?
/r/MensRights24/09/12 10:06 PM
1

I know this is a very serious discussion, but I can't help but wonder if the name "Harry Crouch" was made purposefully to sound like Harry Crotch.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:29 PM
21

Haha. Yeah, equal amounts of abuse for all.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:28 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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