TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

snark42 Archive

View 0 posts and 27 comments by snark42 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)
3

I'm pretty sure it's distribution of child pornography in most countries... how they handle the offense given the circumstances is probably much different though.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 06:24 PM
1

This was on reddit today... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?_r=1
/r/MensRights17/08/10 09:54 PM
3

I would do some research with the doctors.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 07:22 PM
4

"two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people In Illinois recording has been deemed a form of "advanced note taking" so some people consider it a one-party state. Not sure about case law in the other a…
/r/MensRights11/08/10 03:55 PM
6

Try to track down someone who can act as a guardian ad litem to file for a change of custody. They're there to protect you from your parents battles and advocate for what you want. At 14 you should have some say into where you live in most every state. Sorry everyone thinks your some sort of a troll.
/r/MensRights23/06/10 10:08 PM
2

It does say that... While his son is wheelchair bound he is "cognitively fine, very bright and has a good sense of humor." However, according to Frost, his ex-wife (and the custodial parent) sees things differently and believes a DNR is needed. While I guess it doesn't say she ordered it/is responsible for it I assumed so based on her approval.
/r/MensRights14/06/10 07:39 PM
2

they voted against it because they saw an inconsistency between the law and the Court's opinion. I would agree if this were always true. See Gore v Bush and Gonzales v Raich.
/r/MensRights17/05/10 07:47 PM
1

but for minors who are doing drugs there should be mandatory rehab I never called for zero tolerance or any of that bullshit I thought you did... that is all.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 10:26 PM
2

Except that, other than pot, most drugs are actually addictive and harmful, no matter what the age of the user. I disagree. LSD, DMT, psilocybin, 2CB, 2CE, LSA, MDMA (perhaps), etc. Not physically addictive, less harmful than alcohol and tobacco (although good studies are rarely done due to DEA not issuing licenses to use them for research and some of these are relatively new drugs.) While some people do become addicted, people are sex addicts as well.
/r/MensRights10/03/10 10:22 PM
4

for minors who are doing drugs there should be mandatory rehab I got caught doing drugs in high school once (lame kids narc sometimes.) They sent me for mandatory drug/addiction screening. Since I was... drinking 2-3 beers twice a month smoking pot 3-4 times a month and had experimented with (2-10 times each): LSD psilocybin nitrous MDMA DMT they recommended (school required I follow this or leave) rehab, said I had a problem, etc. It did me no good and was a perfectly good waste of time and mon…
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:47 PM
5

I don't think he's saying only his kid should be protected. He's saying he only has an interest with who a 14 year old is sleeping with if it's his kid. For instance, I think all drugs should be legal. I could care less who's doing heroin if they aren't bothering anyone, unless it's my 14 year old kid getting addicted...
/r/MensRights10/03/10 08:13 PM
2

Very true... But this was in the UK, so they were asking if people would like a PAID 39-week holiday and the ability to take up to a year off.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 07:31 PM
1

49 Pence (UK denomination of currency) in case you were at all serious.
/r/MensRights05/09/09 12:06 AM
1

Don't marry someone who sucks. Easier said than done, people change.
/r/MensRights27/07/09 07:51 PM
1

If a child is purposefully brought into this world, than the parents should promise to be together until death do they part. Maybe I am an idealist. I am sorry to see so many disagree. I don't think that's ideal, just old fashioned. I think staying together in a bad situation for the children, or a promise you made a long time ago, is probably not the best for anyone involved. You don't need to be married to stay together in a good situation...
/r/MensRights27/07/09 07:20 PM
8

Procreation requires a marriage where you live?
/r/MensRights27/07/09 05:33 PM
4

So the woman attacks you and you can't have her charged with assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault and battery, etc. (especially in a public place.) That is crazy... I understand she can't be charged with domestic abuse, but there are other laws to protect you, no?
/r/MensRights01/07/09 05:36 PM
5

I think it would be better to run around without one parent than have a Dad resentful of the child/mother around. It's probably not what I would ever choose, but I think people should have that option, just as the woman has abortion and to some extent both have adoption as an option.
/r/MensRights13/05/09 03:58 PM
5

That as a man I can say "I think we should give this child up for adoption, I am not prepared to be a father right now." If she keeps it after I sign some statement to that affect I am absolved of any child support responsibility.
/r/MensRights12/05/09 10:10 PM
1

So you picked out Washington, which makes sense in these thread. I didn't realize Washington was a one party state for sure. Here's the short list of 2 party (or all party) consent states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington I know for a fact while it's on the books as a 2-party state, Illinois has a Supreme Court decision saying recording is "advanced" note taking and as such is generally consi…
/r/MensRights08/12/08 09:46 PM
1

you can record any convo you are involved in Only in one party states. This wouldn't apply to two party states.
/r/MensRights08/12/08 08:48 PM
2

I think you are wrong and this would be illegal in a two party state. Even if it were a one party state, to record in your conversations in your house that you are not a party to (such as your wife conversing with her lawyer via the phone or in the house) is probably totally illegal everywhere.
/r/MensRights08/12/08 06:34 PM
5

This is kind of like running pro se, which I would recommend in cases like this. Unless she can pony up for a lawyer (and even if she does) he can definitely try to plead his case before the court and see what happens. If he loses then paying up and getting a lawyer is the only way to go. I know in Indiana a friend of mine had his child support payments reduced significantly just by writing a letter pleading his case to the judge (and documenting his and her income...)
/r/MensRights05/09/08 09:26 PM
4

And in this instance, they planned on the "dad" being a positive male influence in life of the child, so it's almost like 2 mothers and a very present uncle. I think three parents could easily be better than two myself.
/r/MensRights12/08/08 09:56 PM
3

Well you deleted the question, but it had something to do with why would men donate sperm in this climate. I assume you meant anonymous (go the clinic, no idea who gets your sperm) donation that you are paid for. In this instance, while they may not have had sex, he intentionally used his sperm with a known acquaintance. He then voluntarily paid child support and took the children on weekends. He was acting like a Dad. That all being said, I think their contract before the child was born should …
/r/MensRights12/08/08 09:50 PM
1

Did you read the article? It's not like that at all since he wasn't an anonymous donor.
/r/MensRights12/08/08 05:11 PM
1

He could have argued for nullification on the jury, but that's putting a lot of faith in your lawyer/judge. I guess the theory is the penalty for no contest (essentially guilty since there's no potential civil issue here...) is less than if the jury found him guilty?
/r/MensRights07/08/08 07:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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