TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

throwthetrash16 Archive

View 0 posts and 304 comments by throwthetrash16 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)
7

Yeah, this one is actually kind of "cute" in a way, where they give in simply because it's an idiot foreigner. The linked video of the thread is decidedly fucked, though.
/r/PussyPass08/01/17 03:16 AM
1

Where did I claim I was the lone arbiter? I literally stated: I don't think anyone here thought it was humorous Which is a call to popularity.
/r/MensRights29/11/16 06:26 AM
2

Yes. It is a sense of irony used to make fun of a subject in a contemptuous way. Or so the dictionary says. It also says humor is a logical end of the sarcasm. I don't think anyone here thought it was humorous.
/r/MensRights28/11/16 10:31 PM
3

Uhh... nice username?
/r/MensRights28/11/16 01:45 PM
10

w a t
/r/MensRights28/11/16 01:42 PM
3

New employees also typically cost less than employees with seniority Not when they're FNGs.
/r/MensRights26/11/16 06:10 PM
8

Feminism is anti-shame towards women They shame prostitutes, skinny women, women at home, women who don't follow feminism, etc. Feminism is pro-shame to everyone except feminism itself. Even then, if you're a certain type of feminist...
/r/MensRights23/11/16 03:08 PM
7

Feminism is pro-shame. It's kinda their shtick.
/r/MensRights23/11/16 02:59 PM
1

You do realize that homosexuality is a social-construct, right? Up until modern times homosexuality was simply how you fucked, not who you fucked. Human relationships are incredibly complex and boiling it down to "Penis + Penis = gay" is incredibly simplistic and idiotic. If we start to label behaviors instead of preferences as orientations it disregards a lot of information. We call sex between men homosexual sex, and that is what occurred between my friend and I, but he isn't attracted to men,…
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:34 AM
1

There's a difference between "Eat your damn food" and "you were born wrong, your desires are wrong, you are wrong, you need to change". When the conversion "therapy" doesn't work (which it never does) then the people leave it thinking "I'm bad, what I lust for is bad, my thoughts are bad" etc. How is that helpful?
/r/MensRights15/11/16 03:05 AM
1

Not necessarily. I mean, ever heard the terms "bro-job" or "no-homo"? Largely said in jest, but there is truth to it.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:51 AM
3

Evidence of us "dishing it out" please?
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:44 AM
1

Do you have any idea what friendship is? If you love a friend really deeply it can get intimate like that. The attraction isn't based on any factor regarding orientation, just simple friendship.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 02:34 AM
1

Well, I was the only guy he'd ever been with and he's engaged to a woman now. Sex =/= sexual orientation.
/r/MensRights15/11/16 01:49 AM
3

http://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
/r/MensRights14/11/16 11:26 AM
2

I'd get filthy with you, babe ;)
/r/MensRights14/11/16 11:12 AM
3

They're a traitor to straight people, right?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 11:04 AM
2

Me too babe ;)
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:55 AM
2

Are you still up for a dick sucking?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:34 AM
2

Bromances, man. Don't necessarily need to be gay to have deep love for someone that spills into sex.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:33 AM
2

Secrets, secrets are no fun. Secrets, secrets hurt someone. It's okay. You can come out now.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:22 AM
2

He never did answer to my queries about his late night thoughts...
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:12 AM
1

It just gets to the point where laughing at the village idiot makes more sense because he'll never recover anyway. [Related image.] (https://i.sli.mg/ezG5xT.png)
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:10 AM
2

Yes, they have been meeting without you. It's because you're catty, pathetic and your shoes are so last year that even Milo gagged. Deny it all you want: Homosexuals target children. That's why Russia banned homosexual propaganda. AHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHHAhahahahahahahhahhhaahhahahaahhaahAHAHAHHAHHAHAhahahahahaha My fucking sides, man! Nope. Christcuckery is cuckery all the same. There are many gods, but they all hate us and all want us to suffer. I suppose you didn't read anything I've ever posted ev…
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:08 AM
2

What else is there? What else could there possibly be? Especially when fags target kids and then act like there's no homosexual agenda. Fuck, there's been meetings without me? Why wasn't I told?!? The hell is no fantasy. It's reality. Ohhhh yeah, turn up the heat, it's gonna get sweaty in here... It's the only thing that's ever been real at all. Everything else is an illusion. Only the suffering. Only the misery. You know NOTHING of what you speak. You can make me suffer, daddy... Read the godsd…
/r/MensRights14/11/16 10:01 AM
1

I like to engage him because it's funny and [because watching him chuck a fit by PM's is a gold mine for fake internet points.] (https://i.sli.mg/oVd478.png)
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:56 AM
2

The world is burning and nothing has ever improved. You know it. Ryan started the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning...
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:51 AM
3

He's just giving away free upvotes at this point.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:48 AM
4

TL;DR I AM RIGHT!!!11!!11!
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:43 AM
8

Ever heard the word "try-hard"?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:40 AM
5

I wonder if the thought of two penises touching keeps you up at night.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:19 AM
21

Here's the thing: They don't work and just result in self hate and psychological damage.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 09:18 AM
9

Whatever. I'm right and you know it. Sex is for producing offspring, Sex isn't for anything. It's a mechanism by which certain processes are allowed to occur, nothing more. everything else is fetishism. The English language says otherwise. And even that's degenerate. Does it hurt your feelings that I managed to corrupt straight men with my penis? It's only harassment if it comes from a white male, isn't it? No, I don't care who you are. Also, nice punctuation. Keep trying, love.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 08:46 AM
15

It doesn't matter if I did, you'd never stop being a disgusting fetishist. I mean... yeah, why would I? I like me some dick. And no, homosexuality isn't a fetish, it's a sexual orientation. Big difference. Go have another cry about how the straight guys look at you with disgust. Faggot. It seems you are the one who is crying, following me into other subreddits with harassment. Also, again, no. I've fucked straight men. They seemed quite enthused.
/r/MensRights14/11/16 08:37 AM
26

Please tell me how sucking my boyfriend's dick brings about plagues and the collapse of society. Edit: The fuck has Mossad got to do with me liking dick up the ass?
/r/MensRights14/11/16 08:06 AM
2

I'm not voting.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 01:32 AM
10

5 innocent men vs millions of innocent Syrians and Americans and other allied soldiers who will inevitably die in the war that Clinton wants against Assad and therefore Russia? There is a very simple choice here.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 01:30 PM
6

If you know your rapist is pregnant it's over 2 months after the fact, which means life preservation is no longer your primary concern.
/r/PussyPass08/11/16 09:03 AM
6

#pixellivesmatter
/r/MensRights08/11/16 05:19 AM
10

What if the father wants the child? What if the father wants the child but also allows joint custody? What if the father wants the child to live but gives all custody rights to the mother?
/r/PussyPass08/11/16 05:02 AM
13

Wasn't that just one case where the perpetrators were in high positions in government? In India it's not actually illegal to rape men or boys, so it skews in one direction, but not the one you're thinking.
/r/PussyPass08/11/16 05:02 AM
3

It was per capita, and the reason for this is largely due to European Queens and Empresses such as Victoria declaring war on every tribe they could find.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 06:19 AM
1

Do you understand words? Can you read? Go read the title to this thread.
/r/MensRights04/11/16 06:18 AM
0

Why shouldn't these people be allowed to find their relatives who practically stolen from them?
/r/MensRights04/11/16 05:44 AM
2

Takes thousands of children away from parents and families and abuses them for decades "Poor lifestyle choice"
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:26 AM
18

Never mind the fact that it was a woman who ensured that the fledgling kingdom of England would grow to the greatest position in world history. Never mind the fact that it was a woman who continued her legacy and conquered thousands of tribes and empires to ensure Britain ruled over 25% of the Earth's surface. No, it's all men who ruled forever and all men got a say and no one ever thought about the little women, right?
/r/MensRights04/11/16 02:18 AM
0

He made more than 50 claims. I hope he can give a citation for every fucking one. Also, being taken to court =/= guilty.
/r/PussyPass03/11/16 08:39 AM
30

Instructions unclear, screwdriver is now a transtrender
/r/MensRights03/11/16 03:07 AM
1

"Fucking bureaucrats" is literally what you've been saying this whole thread.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 02:51 AM
1

You've already made numerous personal attacks against sources of books because of your ideological bias.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 02:24 AM
1

Come back to reality.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 02:12 AM
1

No, I'm not surrendering anything. I already showed you 500 comments back that the poor don't get access to the same materials as the rich and you refused to believe this basic facet of life.
/r/MensRights02/11/16 01:44 AM
1

lol
/r/MensRights02/11/16 01:34 AM
1

you will not find elsewhere
/r/MensRights02/11/16 01:25 AM
1

This is a landmark piece of literature, perhaps the greatest piece of historicity What don't you understand about this?
/r/MensRights02/11/16 01:16 AM
1

Education = Knowledge A person studying for 1 year is instantly less educated than a 4 year doctorate.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:35 PM
1

[Germany and the Second World War] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War) This is a landmark piece of literature, perhaps the greatest piece of historicity and it contains information you will not find elsewhere. Even the cheapest paperback issues cost around $100 per volume. This is not a professors. This is not a bureaucrat's.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 11:33 PM
1

No
/r/MensRights01/11/16 02:02 PM
1

Books. Cost. Money.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 09:57 AM
1

Man, you need to get some perspective. You do realize journals cost money, right? Money which the vast percentage of poor and working class would not be willing to pay for compared to the rich. These journals usually have exclusive information, hence the price. Where does gender studies fall into rare archaeological information?
/r/MensRights01/11/16 07:23 AM
1

But most of this depends on your definition of "educated". According to most dictionaries, your level of knowledge. That's even how I spelled it out above.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 05:50 AM
1

I disagree. Stop trying to save face. Firstly, the sentence was grammatically correct, second, I'm not trying to save face because I don't have to. The only retard here is you, unable to read simple sentences. This just proves me right. Again, that's practically always wrong: the info is the same whether it's a live classroom, recording of a live classroom, book, pdf of the book, etc. And what about rare information? Everything the poor have access to the rich do. The reverse cannot be said.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 05:49 AM
1

You "debunked" me by saying I said something I didn't even though I showed you I didn't. You assume the worst of the poor and the working class. No, they don't have the same access to educational resources as the middle and upper classes.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 05:02 AM
1

You can't read. Please, learn to do so.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 04:55 AM
1

Oh please. You're trying to save face for your inability to read/comprehend. It's implied I'm talking about facts. You have trouble reading what I've said to distinguish what I mean from what you want me to mean, and you have the gall to say this? Again, I debunked that. 1 year of trade vs 4 years of study. Which do you think nets more knowledge? Seeing as people who do trades are most likely not going about reading or studying during or after receiving their cert., I'd say the latter.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 04:30 AM
1

You're confused. I'm explaining if there's a factual sentence said in a live classroom it could be recorded and read in a book, video, pdf, etc and it's the same thing. You never said anything about factual though, so don't blame me for you inability to properly explain things. You're confused: You're assuming that people only learn in a bureaucratic setting. Really the person who went to a trade school could study practically every day and not just on the subjects of their job. What? No I'm not…
/r/MensRights01/11/16 03:50 AM
1

You're misunderstanding what education is. Actual education is about knowledge, not bureaucratic levels. I literally stated that: "Someone with a degree is...more educated than a person with a trade as education is directly tied to knowledge," What are you arguing against? It doesn't matter whether the source was watching a live classroom, a book, a video, or a PDF. (Or many other things.) It kind of does if you want your knowledge to be the truth, but then I never said anything otherwise. ie, o…
/r/MensRights01/11/16 03:08 AM
3

Intelligent =/= educated.
/r/MensRights01/11/16 01:05 AM
2

More educated? No. More practical? Depends. Someone with a degree is (usually, you may have bummed out) more educated than a person with a trade as education is directly tied to knowledge, and they were at university for upwards of 3 or 4 years compared to just one or two for a trade. Someone with a trade, however, is (usually, you may not work as much) more practical due to having to work in a hands-on and physical occupation. Neither of these is better than the other.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 11:26 PM
8

You've got the events mixed up.
/r/MensRights31/10/16 09:01 AM
1

What are you, a fag?
/r/MensRights29/10/16 03:36 PM
1

DAE GAS THE DISABLED?!?!?!
/r/MensRights29/10/16 03:24 PM
25

"Clearly the answer to people not being able to use grenades properly is to drop the requirement". Fucking retarded.
/r/MensRights16/10/16 12:10 PM
8

they soon forget the right answers. "Right".
/r/MensRights15/10/16 05:12 PM
1

These people are born of the same cloth.
/r/MensRights15/10/16 12:53 PM
1

What they say =/= their actions. The US and Britain have no control over Africa, nor do they want any. It's a shit-hole continent. There is no infrastructure, no power, no resources they couldn't get elsewhere and law and order is rare. Africa should be looking at keeping the vestiges of colonialism, look how good it did them to let the roads, trains, cities, et cetera fall apart.
/r/MensRights15/10/16 12:15 PM
1

lol
/r/MensRights13/10/16 04:28 AM
0

Hi. I am subscribed here, along with feminist, socialist, conservative, libertarian, basic income, and other subs that may have ideas worth reading. Worth reading. Not debating, though, we can't dare have our ideas go through a challenge, nope, the ole ban hammer will fit nicely here.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 03:10 AM
6

It's the most retarded thing. You wanna know who makes the most suicide jokes? Suicidal people. Source: I have been suicidal, and my friends in the past too. We were quite "edgy" with our humor anyway, but every second joke was usually related to depression or suicide.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 03:14 AM
2

Expect it hasn't? Did you read the article? This is purely manger roles. The company itself hasn't undergone any large changes, women still only make up 25% of the upper management even after all these hires. It increased by 2% from last year lol. That's irrelevant this "80%" crap is. We don't even know the number of positions or hires, it could have been 5 fucking jobs, 4 of which happened to go to women. 80% is not irrelevant, and it is an accurate number. That is completely unnatural in an en…
/r/MensRights08/10/16 02:56 AM
2

I'm not, I couldn't give two shits if she's right or wrong. I'm only arguing that so far we've not learnt a single thing from this article or anything that's been present. It's all speculation thus far. To make your mind up based on what is currently being present, would be an extremely rash thing to do. We know that this couldn't be a matter of "cleaning up shop" because it happened three years after she was hired when those actions would normally be immediate. We know there was a sudden polar …
/r/MensRights08/10/16 02:25 AM
9

It's called a shake down. You do it when something is clearly wrong with a company, you bring in outside help to "cut" your dead weight (there is actually a TV show based on this premise called House of Lies with Don Cheadle, they do exactly this). Streamline processes. Then you hire who you need back in to implement or improve the business. Normally very specialised people or teams. This happened in 2015. She was hired in 2012. Why the wait? That's not been presented anywhere. Not in the articl…
/r/MensRights08/10/16 01:52 AM
29

Yea, but correlation doesn't mean causation? Are you actually retarded? You don't just create positions out of thin air unless you want to bankrupt yourself. And if your referring to the loss of these positions, then ask yourself why they had such a massive turn over rate in one year, and why it was mostly women when the majority who applied were men?
/r/MensRights08/10/16 01:34 AM
26

Yea, that doesn't really PROVE anything. Again it's possible nothing unto ward happened, maybe a lot more women applied for the jobs? And a lot more men were fired in order to justify the hires.
/r/MensRights08/10/16 12:22 AM
3

If you want a personal witch hunt, go fuck off to SRS. Dox people somewhere else.
/r/MensRights06/10/16 11:23 AM
1

Yeah, no, I brought this up when we started talking. This was a contradiction on your part, I'm not "steering" this anywhere.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 07:00 AM
0

I'm going off of what you said Key point here.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 06:00 AM
0

Doesn't matter, I'm going off of what you said, which was contradictory. You dug your own hole.
/r/MensRights03/10/16 04:40 AM
1

"Mr White Male, I'm BBC. Uh, you don't get to bring SJWs!" "They are not true Scotsmen."
/r/MensRights03/10/16 04:37 AM
0

In other words, he was rejected in favor of a certain student
/r/MensRights03/10/16 04:32 AM
7

How do you want to judge presenters purely on merit, if you have reach your diversity standards? Of course decisions will be biased! I don't think so. That all requires merit.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 04:47 PM
8

I don't think so. Yeah I know. I mean, just, what?
/r/MensRights02/10/16 04:33 PM
8

That all requires merit.
/r/MensRights02/10/16 04:02 PM
1

No, I don't care about that, I care that people's claims are adequately justified.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 05:09 AM
1

So you rescind? Coolio.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 04:22 AM
1

Only insofar as you prove your point. If you don't care, rescind what you said. Otherwise, provide links.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 03:52 AM
1

Because you refuse to provide links?
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 03:31 AM
1

I thought it was fairly obvious.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 03:22 AM
1

That has nothing to do with self-deprecating humor, but politics. What's your point?
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 02:53 AM
1

No, I didn't. It's called self-deprecating humor.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 02:43 AM
1

And yet linking is infinitely better than not doing so. And I was talking about your retard. In your brain. That was a smooth save.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 02:34 AM
1

No, your retarded. I want to see it. That means you link it.
/r/PussyPass30/09/16 12:53 AM
1

So it's that simple? then why haven't you linked any? It's being "spoiled" to want evidence. lmfao "How dare you want facts to back up my statements!"
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 03:16 PM
1

[You yourself said that you didn't want to go through the whole thread finding evidence, just a day or two back.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/PussyPass/comments/53xgul/equality_in_the_military/d7zuuh1) So, which is it? Is it difficult or not to traverse this page for evidence? If it isn't, then why haven't you linked any? If it is, then stop berating me for not doing so.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 06:13 AM
1

No, it's not. One is directly showing it to you, and then you piss (or read). You are telling me that "the toilets is here, you just have to scour the whole restaurant for it".
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 05:50 AM
1

Yes, they are. It's a direct showing of your proof. Telling me to go look for them is not.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 05:30 AM
1

No, I asked for links, you provided none.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 05:00 AM
1

I'm not looking for them. That's your job.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 03:11 AM
1

Direct quotes and an easy way to see them in the thread itself is more than enough. No, not when I explicitly asked for links 3 days ago.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 02:52 AM
1

You haven't actually presented the "proof" yourself bud.
/r/PussyPass29/09/16 12:26 AM
1

How my proof is offered doesn't change anything What don't you understand about "the onus is on you"?
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 09:01 AM
1

What don't you understand about "the onus is on you"? I'm not the one who should be looking when you are claiming. You have to look and present. Much like in show and tell at kindergarten, it's not my job to present your toys.
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 07:00 AM
1

Yours, if you want to see proof, is to find it. What don't you understand about "the onus is on you"?
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 05:45 AM
1

I take care of myself because, just like when you want to prove your "facts", the onus is on me to do so.
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 05:35 AM
1

The onus is on you to prove your claims.
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 04:45 AM
1

Paranoia: baseless or excessive suspicion of others How is it baseless? I don't trust you simply because I've not seen you before, so why should I trust what you say? Once again, The onus is on you to prove your claims.
/r/PussyPass28/09/16 12:46 AM
1

The onus is on you to prove your claims. I want you to "place it at my feet" because that's literally required when proving something. Also, just as suspected, you don't understand what paranoid means.
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 06:21 PM
1

paranoid You clearly don't understand this word, just as you clearly don't understand wanting fact is not being a neckbeard.
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 03:48 PM
1

Oh yes, how dare I get hung up on actual proof instead of just trusting your word.
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 07:17 AM
1

Jesus christ dude, get a life. ??? I'd bet a pretty penny you damn near hit every mark for being a neckbeard yourself with the way you talk to people. Coming from the guy who is aggressive and insulting others who ask for evidence? K
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 05:11 AM
1

See, about ten comments ago I asked you to link them. You stated you would but couldn't due to being on mobile. Now that you aren't on mobile, you are still giving me simple quotes, no links. If you read, you would realize we're back at square one.
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 05:01 AM
1

I did ask for links, did I not?
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 04:35 AM
1

/u/alexandrabb
/r/PussyPass27/09/16 04:04 AM
1

Yes, but because they broke apart and formed new governments that history is what I am referring to. There is more "American" history in that 99.8% of their past that formed and shaped their current culture and laws. Also, the government creates the "law", government and law go hand in hand. Yes, but when 95% of your laws are in direct parity to the British...
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 11:46 AM
1

American government after they broke away from the British is completely different than the British government. Government, not law. It's the same for American history, that's like saying that North Korea and south Korea are the same and have the same exact history. Well, 99.9% of their history is exactly the same (71 years of North/South separation compared to 5 millions years of Korean history) and for America it's roughly 99.8% of their history is exactly the same (239 years of separation com…
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 11:11 AM
1

Well, one is 95% based on the other, so it's practically identical.
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 10:33 AM
2

Which followed from British law
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 04:38 AM
0

Several times on this blog this blog blog
/r/MensRights26/09/16 04:05 AM
1

!RemindMe 1 day
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 03:54 AM
1

Are you on a computer...now?
/r/PussyPass26/09/16 01:32 AM
1

Are you that stupid? You link the comments, and then I read them.
/r/PussyPass25/09/16 08:35 AM
12

Hate to rain on the circlejerk a bit, but this isn't exactly the posterchild for a broken justice system. In many places they don't look at justice as "vengeance and retribution" but as "rehabilitation and risk to society". This is not rehabilitation. She is not required to take any courses or anything that would prevent repeat offense. Even in these nations that look at it as rehabilitation such as Norway, you still have to have a stint in prison. This woman had no previous criminal history, Wh…
/r/PussyPass25/09/16 06:43 AM
1

So I'm just taking your word for it? That's not good enough.
/r/PussyPass25/09/16 03:00 AM
1

Okay, so, I'm on mobile. Kinda sucks to link comments on mobile. But, as I read through this thread, every few comments was a variation of "women shouldn't be allowed in the military". So I'm just taking your word for it? That's not good enough. So "entirety" isn't literal. No shit. But the point still stands that honestly, a lot of users in this sub are straight up neckbeards who are just angry they can't get laid. Yeah, you're full of shit. Unless you have evidence?
/r/PussyPass24/09/16 10:53 PM
1

Okay, so I simply have your word on this, then? That's not good enough. You said the entirety of the thread was bad mouthing women, now it's just one comment, and it's the second at the top (not that hard to find, so why not link it?). That's hardly an "entirety".
/r/PussyPass24/09/16 05:59 AM
1

Link it or I will assume lies.
/r/PussyPass24/09/16 05:39 AM
2

Point out who is saying this, then.
/r/PussyPass24/09/16 01:20 AM
3

The kid did.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 06:31 PM
6

The person who cut the penis off a young boy and forced them to transition to female before they committed suicide was a trained doctor.
/r/MensRights23/09/16 12:51 PM
1

Equality of outcome would be nice. No, it wouldn't. That's called rape.
/r/MensRights15/09/16 03:32 AM
1

It isn't if it's because you're unattractive, or will you forcibly rape people "for the right reasons"?
/r/MensRights14/09/16 10:39 AM
2

Ah, I see, you think that getting a life threatening disease is equal to a largely insignificant when controlled state of mind? Opinion noted and discarded. The correct response is to date outside of these channels, not tear them down.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:47 AM
1

Please explain what you're getting at.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:33 AM
4

Delet this If every single poster who had this story posted it, then this sub would be literal dogshit.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:10 AM
2

Okay? That is a problem on an individual level, it has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 06:09 AM
0

Oh, damn, you got it wrong! The correct answer was Final Destination. Well, you still go home with a nice washing machine, congratulations!
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:48 PM
0

Your credibility for being correct is lacking though so you'll have to forgive me. Credibility? I don't have internet credentials. So was it 'we' that you had a hard time with? Should I type s l o w e r? It might help you, but not me because I already read perfectly fine. It's you who doesn't understand that I have no problems. Don't project your problems onto me please.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:42 PM
1

Well, I know I can read properly, so I ignored. Note that I denied nothing, so "we" did not go unseen. You'd know that if you could properly read.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:38 PM
-1

So, you admit it? And here I was thinking you had absolutely no self awareness.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:35 PM
-1

I see you also cannot properly read.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:30 PM
-1

Easily astonished In your case, yes. I thought you'd not be that stupid. and simple. I'm not the one having an aneurysm caused by mere introspection. I'm not surprised. Good for you.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 12:19 PM
2

No, it's me surmising that they were lacking in self awareness and couldn't muster the brain power to see that.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:55 AM
4

How was it "edgy"? I used a loaded question to get them to see how irrelevant it was to the topic at hand. For example, why are you still 3 years old and using the word "edgy"?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 11:42 AM
8

Totally lacking in self awareness, I see. This latest comment of yours is truly astounding.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 10:51 AM
9

Totally lacking in self awareness, I see.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 09:57 AM
11

Totally lacking in self awareness, I see. The point of this mental exercise was to get you to realize you had asked a loaded question. I guess that's too much for your brain to handle.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 08:58 AM
10

Have you stopped beating your wife?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 08:53 AM
1

Good thing renewables exist.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 07:22 AM
1

Note how the US military was long gone before that.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 05:29 AM
1

The biggest predictors of premature death due to infection are actually access to potable water, sewage treatment, antibiotics and vaccination. "Predictor"? I think you mean preventor. And this is not true for 99.9% of human history. Cheetahs still exist, despite having been whittled down to a very low MHC/HLA haplotype diversity, and they have none of those things. Okay? There are millions, possibly billions of species who weren't so lucky. I suppose there could be some issues related to divers…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 05:13 AM
1

LOL, and yet, you know nothing about me. I know you're retarded. I point out - nowhere in your link does is say, "impossible to survive and rebuild from." "Due to the event, the remaining population has a very low level of genetic diversity, which means that the population as a whole has few genetic characteristics." From this point anyone with a brain knows that minimal genetic diversity will result in massive vulnerability to disease and other attacks against the species. And anyhow, it's enti…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 04:42 AM
1

Sexual dimorphism is unrelated to in-group, out-group. Gyno-centrism is only related to the importance of the number of vaginas compared to penis' in reproduction. I ask again, what has this has what to do with gyno-centrism?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 04:30 AM
1

I assume you're not dumb and you know what that means. In group bias / antagonism towards outsiders exists all over the animal world. And this has what to do with gyno-centrism?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 04:13 AM
1

No, you clearly don't. Which is why you replied to me as if I was OP. No, I replied to you as if you ignored the fact that I said Boldening does not make you right Which you did. We can see why. Because you immediately weren't able to defend your idiocy and resorted to bitching about bolding You've again ignored why. While lying about what OP said. Righto. You're a bit dense aren't you, little feminist. Aren't ad homs bad?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:56 AM
0

Yes, the person banned from SRS and ghazi and all the other holes is a feminist. Right. Just go look at my top comments. Feminism and it's related ilk are collectivist, "us vs them" (everyone is sexist/racist/etc) and it follows that "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets". When the best example of racism you can find is just repeats of racial attack hoaxes, then no, there is no problem. [SocJus] SRS user admits to taking over multiple subreddits and shutting them down
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:55 AM
1

...
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:51 AM
1

Not OP, Yes, I know. You're simply ignoring why I was making fun of his use of bold. little feminist. ... From all of these replies you're quite literally the only one ignoring anything. lallalala I can't hear you?
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:50 AM
1

holding words Words are not physical, bruvh
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:45 AM
0

You're ignoring what I said earlier. It doesn't make your point more correct
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:42 AM
1

Uh, the fucking opposite happens. Feminists declaring it doesn't exist is dismissing it as a problem and trying to minimize it. That's what I said, almost verbatim.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:42 AM
1

I'm not mad, bruh.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:40 AM
0

Many places.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:36 AM
0

love me some bold "strawman, blah, ism, blah, blah" No. None of what you are saying is new and doesn't actually address the points anyone has made, you are simply rehashing.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:27 AM
1

Dot Points All of which occurred after the US stopped caring. As I said, "The US could go on in Vietnam for much longer, potentially decades. It was only with the loss of public interest did they leave. By the time it was over, the US was not a player in the conflict. That's why casualties are the only usable metric." "But we killeded a lot of yella people! Yeaaaaahhaaa!" Again, poopy head. Right. And the Axis won WW2, because they killed 16 million allied soldiers, whereas the Allies countries …
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:25 AM
1

The objective was to overthrow Saddam Hussain, and install a stable democracy that would serve as a basis point for democratic reforms across the middle east and act as a counter to Islamic radicalism. Otherwise, why go? To go after weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? [No. According to Bush himself, it was] (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html) "...to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, …
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:18 AM
-2

Bold BOLD BOLD Does not make you correct. Actually counter what I've pointed out. Don't downvote and just go "nuh uh". I actually made a lengthy reply as to why. You're entire comment is just "use reason and logic, don't downvote". That's what I did. You're too thick to see it.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:55 AM
2

The Yugoslavian war indeed was a success. But the US wasn't that centrally involved. We dropped some bombs on a few countries that had virtually no air force. I'm not really sure, but we may have sent in some peace keepers under the umbrella of NATO and / or the United Nations (actually I think it was others), but they didn't really in all that much direct fighting. Maybe we had a couple of advisers on the ground and basically that's it. Not a big conflict, by any means. The US was the biggest f…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:53 AM
1

The premise was - what major war have we won, since the 1950's in Korea, which was not a win but a tie. I'd say that the Yugosalve wars and Vietnam were quite major in their implications. No, picking on countries with virtually no military to speak of does not qualify as a war. "War" Noun "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air." It certainly qualifies as war. And no, I'm going to put it out there, that by p…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:28 AM
1

And? You have to explain you're point. You can't just throw a wikipedia entry at me.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:25 AM
1

Because we are biologically hardwired to continue to propagate the species.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:24 AM
2

And again, this applies to misogyny and misandry as well. Which are "just sexism". No. We have words for racism against whites- racism against whites. Reverse-racism is a neologism that is trying to take it's place to minimize the perception or importance of anti-white racism. Misandry and misogyny are not doing that because they are used correctly in their current form by society- we don't say sexism against men, we say misandry and so forth. Just like we say racism against Europeans, we say mi…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:24 AM
1

And? You have to explain you're point. You can't just throw a wikipedia entry at me.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:19 AM
1

And? You have to explain you're point. You can't just throw a wikipedia entry at me.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:19 AM
1

And? You have to explain you're point. You can't just throw a wikipedia entry at me.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 02:19 AM
1

Actually, that's completely wrong. "No, you're the poo poo head" I'm correct Having a very low population and such low genetic diversity is absolutely impossible to survive and rebuild from. mate, I'm a biology major. You know absolutely nothing. Just stop now while you are only retard level stupid, save your middling reputation.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:55 AM
1

Why the fuck does that matter? "This is equal to racism" "No it isn't" "How does that matter?" You're the biggest moron I know. And what makes you think there is no evidence of racism in other mammals? Did I say that? Racism in animals is not the topic being discussed. You brought up racist "science" which you believed sexual-dimorphism and gyno-centrism in both humans and other mammals was equal to- it is not. You're a fool who doesn't even know what they're arguing about.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:51 AM
2

No, it's because men are seriously undervalued. Men are legally obligated under Chinese law to look after their aging parents- women are not. Also, parents are legally required to support their daughters if they aren't married. If you aren't wealthy (This is China. You aren't.) then the only possible choice is to have a boy, not because they "more respected" but because they are less respected. They are practical slaves, locked down by their parents until they die, whilst women are favored by th…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:45 AM
1

Money and healthcare access do not matter in the factoring of overpopulation, merely that these people and their nations are not westernized or developed yet. We can still take on many more people, possibly double.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:42 AM
1

No. We have population bottlenecks where it is literally impossible for the population of surviving humans to regrow faster than we age. We may have reached these points (just barely) once or twice in history. That requires thousands of women and hundreds of men. Once you add in the massive loss of genetic diversity into one woman and hundreds of men it's basically a lost cause.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:41 AM
1

Scientific racism was mostly a failed intellectual experiment. Well then, thank god we have evidence of sexual-dimorphism and gyno-centrism in both humans and other mammals.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:38 AM
2

Gulf War I was mostly won, except Saddam Hussain was not toppled, we were forced to run a no-fly zone over the entire northern half of the country for the next decade... until we decided to re-start hostilities (Gulf War II)... and lost. ????? We won. Saddam was toppled. This was a political bungle in that the government did not prepare for the post-victory running of Iraq. If we defeated Germany but just left and didn't run it for almost half a century, it's still a win. Grenada - not a major c…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:36 AM
1

That's a political loss. America didn't lose militarily.
/r/MensRights06/09/16 01:26 AM
8

You can see that in how girls are the typical victims of infanticide and you only have to look at the results of China's one child policy. That's not because the men are valued, it's because women are not legally obligated to look after their old parents. It's the reverse of what you think. The men are practical slaves.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 12:52 PM
5

Bull? It's the truth Squads performed worse due to the males going to protect the females to the detriment of their own safety. We are biologically hardwired to do this: the survival of the species is directly tied to the survival of women. One man and hundred woman can repopulate the earth, one woman and a hundred billion men cannot.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 12:49 PM
-2

This is how I counter your "point": There is no such thing as reverse-isms. There is only sexism and racism. Boldening words does not make you right, it makes you look like a prick.
/r/MensRights05/09/16 12:02 PM
8

No.
/r/MensRights31/08/16 01:12 AM
2

And? The point is what? Be grateful that you have to share when they don't?
/r/MensRights30/08/16 01:13 PM
-1

It very much matters, both of these facts undermine your whole point. It hasn't been prosecuted in a long time, nobody that has to sign up for it today has to worry about being convicted. And even if they did many states DO let convicted felons vote. Actually, they do have to worry. It's still breaking the law. Just because it's not policed heavily in Amsterdam, purchasing marijuana is illegal in the Netherlands. A dormant law is still a law. So not only is it oversimplified to the point of absu…
/r/MensRights29/08/16 04:17 AM
-1

It is truthful though. Not signing up for the draft is a felony, and most states do not allow felons to vote. Just because the last convicted dodger was in 1986 doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 04:03 AM
-1

It's not a lie, it's just a highly simplified point.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 02:26 AM
13

money, my dear boy
/r/MensRights26/08/16 10:16 AM
2

wahabist quran "unrelated" Youre just sourcing medieval scholars. Medieval christian scholars would say equally regressive things. And? This is simple whataboutism. You do realise Christianity went through multiple reformations, right?
/r/MensRights13/08/16 07:27 AM
2

While I agree that this sort of thing should be decided by the subscriber base (downvoting irrelevant content), it makes sense to leave this in SRSsucks or AMRsucks. I'd suggest deleting these kind of posts but stating that it would be more accepted over there.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 03:17 AM
6

Habte got a special invitation into the Olympics from FINA, swimming’s world governing body, because he is from an under-represented country. I take umbridge with that.
/r/MensRights11/08/16 11:53 AM
3

Wrongful detainment.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 12:05 AM
3

And that's if you exclude every other death. Jesus fucking Christ.
/r/MensRights06/08/16 12:56 PM
1

Ok2hatewomen 1 hour old nicetroll.jpg, fuck off back to SRS.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:39 AM
1

Ok2hatewomen 1 hour old nicetroll.jpg, fuck off back to SRS.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 11:38 AM
1

Family of mum found hanged You can draw two, very different, conclusions from this.
/r/MensRights01/08/16 10:43 AM
1

Paul Feig is a joke hack fraud. FTFY
/r/MensRights30/07/16 12:07 AM
6

Well, sure, but - in fairness - they were being realistic about achievable political goals. They already had an extremely unpopular cause - extending suffrage to any women. You've made one mistake- assuming women didn't have suffrage. Suffrage was based on wealth, not sex. There was and English woman who had 5 votes at one point.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 01:05 PM
3

You don't get credit for passing as a decent human being, especially not when that's rare.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 10:37 AM
32

Historically, men did not have the universal suffrage that suffragettes demanded for women. It's a blog, but it's got it's own sources. It's just a collection of them. As for the other thing, I got that from TL:DR's videos (he sources it) but it was from roughly a year ago and I think it is in this one. Everything else I mentioned should be sourced too. Basically, sometime in the very late 1800s a woman allowed her husband to take his children horse riding. In doing so, one died in a freak accid…
/r/MensRights29/07/16 10:02 AM
51

Doubtful. The FW was just as sexist and racist as the current wave. They fought for votes for all wealthy women when not even all wealthy (or even poor) men had the vote, the explicitly fought against blacks having the vote, fought for female only custody, etc.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 08:43 AM
7

entitled men Complete lack of self awareness.
/r/MensRights29/07/16 07:42 AM
44

Feig actually said it needs to make $500m. As opening day approaches, Feig can’t help but think about the stakes of making a $150 million movie. “A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low,” he says. So in order to be worth a damn and recoup the budget and the marketing and be a viable product to turn into a franchise (something Sony's been gunning for for almost a half decade now), it needs more than $500m. “But the thing I care about most is t…
/r/MensRights29/07/16 12:57 AM
2

Where is the contradiction? You need reasonable evidence of consent, and silence or lack of resistance does not meet that standard. No, you need reasonable evidence of no-consent. Rape is a crime, and like all crime, it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence of their claims. One reason for that is that rapists have demonstrated a high level of skill at finding, testing and exploiting women who will be silent and not resist during rape. Source? This is only true in serial rapists. They don'…
/r/MensRights28/07/16 08:50 AM
2

You need evidence, most people get it automatically from body language I guess. So you concede the point? You admit what you are saying is completely fruitless? Where did I say it didn't matter? "That is why laws often specifically exclude silence or lack of resistance as evidence of consent." Are you thinking of the bit about before a change of mind? No.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 07:22 AM
2

NotAllMen is something one does on feminist pages if one feels the need to get yelled at. No, it's what you do when someone conflates men with rapists. Do you want me to put on my feminist hat and yell at you? I really don't care, you'd just make an ass of yourself.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 07:21 AM
2

Yes there is evidence women are more fragile. They seem more liable to PTSD in general, and very much more so from straight rape. If men understood this better then we would be more careful. All men are rapists huh? Was that a Freudian slip?
/r/MensRights28/07/16 05:57 AM
2

Jesus fuck man, at least try to create a solid narrative. Here you are saying you need to read body language whilst previously you stated it doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 05:56 AM
2

Moreover, how does she prove she freezed up?
/r/MensRights28/07/16 05:54 AM
2

And yet you insist that she has a case. We have a thing called evidence; there is no evidence of any rape occurring, but there is evidence that she at least wanted sex. In this case, we go with consensual sex.
/r/MensRights28/07/16 05:48 AM
2

The texts fitted her version very well, and did not fit his version well. She literally said "come over and let's fuck." In what world does that support rape?
/r/MensRights27/07/16 09:26 PM
28

I'd like to preface this by putting this wonderful music piece linked, so that people can calm down as I did. You made me very angry. All the woman has to do is change her mind minutes later "Listen, great sex, but you raped me." and you are a rapist if you recklessly ignore the signs of her distress such as freezing up. You've clearly never had sex. Feelings of sexual ecstasy can literally make you freeze up due their intensity. Consent is instantaneous, it has never been possible to give advan…
/r/MensRights27/07/16 07:17 AM
6

Flies to New York every week to see a psychiatrist? The most I go is three suburbs over. Why the fuck are you going past whole continents?
/r/MensRights25/07/16 11:48 PM
1

Feminists are openly boasting about abusing and sabotaging boys using their positions as teachers. Stop back-pedaling. Nope because rape is an aberration not part of what makes one a male. Then you'll actually have to substantiate the claim that being a woman requires you to abuse men and boys. However most females agree with or practice feminism to varying degrees. Feminism encourages and condones abuse. Therefore since almost all women are infected with feminism they cannot be trusted to teach…
/r/MensRights22/07/16 05:05 AM
0

I said that women cannot be trusted to teach our boys This quote shows why, because they abuse and sabotage them on purpose and do so openly and gleefully. Therefore women should not be allowed to teach boys. Not all women abuse men and boys. This is equal to saying all men are rapists. Go troll somewhere else, preferably with a less obvious tone.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:23 AM
0

To what? You actually have to explain your quote, not just throw it out.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 04:15 AM
0

They start very close to the enemy, about 150 meters away I'd say, giving them little time to react. There's multiple ambush battle maps in the beast-paths and multiple linear subterranean maps. I can quote random stuff too.
/r/MensRights22/07/16 03:34 AM
8

Does it really matter what they were doing? Is there any point in bringing it up beyond a snide character assassination besides to give more credibility to the women in the situation?
/r/MensRights21/07/16 10:57 PM
0

As if yours was? If you're trying to troll, use an account older than a few days and actually make a poe comment, not one that would never actually be seen here otherwise.
/r/MensRights21/07/16 10:40 AM
2

The European Union is preparing to sign the European Convention on Human Rights, creating a common European legal space for over 820 million citizens. Can't find anything saying they are part of the European Union, so I'll just assume they aren't.
/r/MensRights20/07/16 09:08 AM
3

I know, but getting karma off of trolls is quite good, as you generally get a lot more attention calling their shit than actually making a substantive comment like OP's.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 01:56 AM
1

That's what I said, didn't I? You take the numbers of women and men who watch porn, adjust per capita, and show the minutes watched. Unless you mean how many from each gender watch porn and compare, in which case I'd have worded it differently. That would result in more men watching porn, but if you include erotica, the number for women will jump up massively.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 01:53 AM
0

The question for a source wasn't asking for a comparison of men to women account numbers, it was asking about watching porn at similar rates (such as 1 hour each) and different stuff (such as women watching Kim K and men watching slutty gang bang part 2). At least that's how I read it.
/r/MensRights19/07/16 01:46 AM
8

As someone who is about to finish school, literally all these things would be detrimental, especially at a time where boys are growing and finding their personal identities.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 10:35 PM
1

Sure.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 10:33 PM
5

Uh...read the article maybe?
/r/MensRights18/07/16 10:30 PM
7

Didn't really answer the question.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 03:44 AM
9

It's only for women, going off the headline.
/r/MensRights18/07/16 12:57 AM
9

Have you actually been in one though?
/r/MensRights18/07/16 12:49 AM
5

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly, there is a massive scale difference between meeting hegemonic imperialists with equal force, and rebuking some idiotic feminists on the street with the equivalent of battery.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 01:58 PM
1

we've never seen sex produce a child never mind that IVF literally involves seeding a fertile egg with semen, and that agriculture/pollination/etc all have, for millenia, been entirely reliant on this basic facet of knowledge: Sex equals babies.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 08:00 AM
3

The actual rapes/attitude seem to be worse though "Rape culture" amirite? Also, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. We can however assert that the attitude is much worse when men are raped, seeing as there are no laws that allow men to be raped. Apparently some people were saying she deserved it because women shouldn't be out at night or because she shouldn't have fought That's one of the rapists saying it, as if that's a shock. NEWSFLASH: Criminals justify …
/r/MensRights18/05/16 08:22 AM
1

"NO! Please, I'll do anything! I'll ev- Hmm, that's quite nice actually."
/r/MensRights18/05/16 08:12 AM
1

it's what your husband would have wanted." He was married, maybe he'll get some action now?
/r/MensRights17/05/16 10:33 AM
1

Surely he'd be fine going off to fight then?
/r/MensRights13/05/16 07:50 AM
1

Name fits.
/r/MensRights11/05/16 10:26 AM
6

Few things could be more horrible than punishing an actual rape victim for a false accusation. They don't. It's only when clear, deliberate harm is shown to be what the expected result was, not just having an investigation fail to limited evidence.
/r/MensRights10/05/16 09:29 PM
10

If the police do not do anything about it, then I suggest putting up signs around the neighbor with his picture and the word MASTURBATOR in big bold letters. That will make him think twice before doing it again in places where people could see him if they looked over the fence. o_o There is so much hatred a vitriol in that paragraph.
/r/MensRights09/05/16 12:04 PM
1

Math my friend. Do you know it? I too can make false equivalences with numbers straight from my arse.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 02:47 AM
1

No, once again, almost every historian believes he was atheist. No, they don't. Throwing a Wikipedia article at people as evidence is pathetic and counts for nothing. Who should I believe? I random guy on the internet, or yhe majority of historians? HMMMMM You believe the random guy who made that Wikipedia article.
/r/MensRights08/05/16 12:09 AM
1

You do realize people can be pragmatists, though? When you're a dictator and religion holds a large sway over people, it becomes a threat to your regime. Having a competing powerbase in a country means you're threatened. He was religious, but did not like that he did not control it, hence his plans for a new Christian religion with a basis upon him and German culture.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 11:06 PM
0

He was raised in a Roman Catholic househole but yet was protestant? Bullshit. People raised in a religious family are atheist? Bullshit. People raised in an Anglican family are Muslim? Bullshit. And so on.
/r/MensRights07/05/16 11:06 AM
1

Schumer is an outspoken feminist. She is currently responsible for a bout of cyberbullying and 'harassment' against a man.
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:32 PM
3

waht search bar yuo got bicth?
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:31 PM
17

Pardon my French, but does that mean suck big donkey dick?
/r/MensRights04/05/16 09:28 PM
2

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. "I don't see why we treat the crimes differently though." I was just saying that the data does back up his statement. "More men are murdered, should we halt all investigations for females if we're to use that logic?"
/r/MensRights02/05/16 09:30 PM
5

I don't see why we treat the crimes differently though. More men are murdered, should we halt all investigations for females if we're to use that logic?
/r/MensRights02/05/16 09:03 PM
1

I never denied it. "South Korea's smaller military is technologically superior so it doesn't matter." No it doesn't, because it's not a service to have your name on a list. You're not serving anything. It fits the definition. It was used to conscript people throughout it's history. It's conscription. It's moot if you counter-act it. That's what counter-act means. It doesn't make it not an advantage, as you claimed it does.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 03:02 AM
1

Geography is a factor too. So is literally everything, yet here you are denying that numbers gives one an advantage. Actually that's exactly what is is. Conscription is an act. "Conscription, or drafting, is the compulsory enlistment of people in a national service, most often a military service." The Selective Service fits that definition. It is conscription. It's only an advantage if the members of those forces are equally capable. Technology, training, tactics all make that unlikely. Just bec…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 02:38 AM
1

Or China has no beef with them and South Korea's smaller military is technologically superior so it doesn't matter. It does matter, actually. A numerically superior force can easily beat a technologically superior one, see the Korean War where the UN forces were pushed back from the Chinese border to into Worst Korea. Not the same thing as conscription. That's a culture of protecting one's nation and prepping for conflict. They have conscription. Every man has to go through it for a few years an…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 02:29 AM
1

North Korea has conscription, and 20% of its population is in the armed forces. Which is one of the main reasons war hasn't occurred again in the region for more than half a century. The West knows that it will be a bloody war without the Nuclear Option, and Best Korea knows that it will be a pointless war due to the Nuclear Option. Switzerland was spared invasion during the World Wars largely to to the fact that every able man was at some point in the armed services and knew how to fight. The U…
/r/MensRights02/05/16 02:03 AM
1

Who do you think would a win war? The USA with conscription or Canada without? The nations who have large reserves and conscription are also the at the pinnacle of military technology and tactics, ie: Russia, China and the US. All of them are nuclear capable. They all have some form of conscription.
/r/MensRights02/05/16 01:35 AM
1

I never assumed that. Compare a conscription army to a volunteer one. Which is more likely to win a large war?
/r/MensRights02/05/16 01:26 AM
0

spurious accusations "You support the Vietnam War" guilty Wrong think is a crime now?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 11:13 PM
1

If your economic competitor has slaves, is that a moral justification for you to use them as well to be able to compete? Depends. I don't hold any but my own moral compass in high regard, so I say no, but in a realm where it is morally acceptable, then still no. It has been shown, historically, that slaves are a terrible way to boost the economic potential of a business compared to paid workers. Again, my entire point is that conscription increases the likelihood of going to war. Your argument i…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 11:11 PM
0

No, seriously, just own up to supporting the war, then we can go from there Why don't you finally own up to being a rapist pedophile, then we can go from there.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 10:43 AM
1

If one has conscription, and the other doesn't, don't you think that only furthers their chances of declaring war?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 10:42 AM
1

Squirm and lie to yourself all you like, you still can't convince me you didn't mean what you very obviously meant. So you've come to a conclusion, without facts or evidence, and there are only two outcomes. I can: a) Admit to supporting the Vietnam War, and be branded a liar and dishonest, or b) Not admit to supporting the Vietnam War, and be branded a liar and dishonest because you are omnipotent and supposedly know my every though and hidden meaning in very simple text. See the problem? You a…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:33 AM
0

Your meaning was plain until I called you on it. Yes, I am perceptive enough to see what you meant and no amount of your squirming will get you out of it, liar. So my words had no hidden meaning until you planted the meaning into it yourself? That's some weird conspiratard shit right there dude. Honestly, you need fucking help. And I already know you're a sockpuppet, but calling in yourself in your own post? That's just so cringey. Ugh, I feel sorry for you. [I don't even know him.] (https://img…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:19 AM
1

Pretty much, this guy is a moron. I just fail to see how explaining why the draft was used in Vietnam equals condoning the war.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:07 AM
1

So you claim to see hidden meaning in my comment, without actually ever pointing it out or substantiating it, and then claim that I am putting hidden meaning in it, meaning which I didn't know existed, I might add. You're whole "argument" here rests on two implications: a) I am not admitting to supporting the Vietnam War, in which case I'm dishonest and b) I admit to the supporting the Vietnam War, in which case I am dishonest and a liar. You have predicated only two options in this whole diatri…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 06:57 AM
1

The point is that conscription was used to facilitate war. That doesn't disprove a lack of it disincentives it. A lack of what?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 04:26 AM
0

One of the reasons the draft was used in Vietnam was because the US could not defend Europe against Soviet forces and fight in Vietnam without it. My exact quote. How is this justifying or condoning the Vietnam War? Please show me the mental gymnastics required to get there.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 03:36 AM
1

With conscription. FDR even had a peacetime draft in the late 30s. Exactly, so how does this undermine the conduct of a large war, as you said it did? Same logic applies to being unwilling to volunteer for other positions. And? Cooking, manufacturing, etc don't require a large national will to do and die.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 03:35 AM
2

And those countries have not known war for a significant while. As soon as they are threatened with their state on the line, their will be conscription.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 03:33 AM
0

So discussion about why the draft was used in Vietnam is explicit support for it? Where did you learn to read?
/r/MensRights01/05/16 02:21 AM
1

Show me where I defended the Vietnam War then. If you don't, you're lying out your ass. If you do, then I'll admit to it. Back up your statements, or get some medicine.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 01:03 AM
1

It undermines the ability to conduct large scale war. Conscription undermines large wars? How do you think the two world wars were fought? People will quickly have to defend themselves against a credible threat, won't they? If they refuse, they'd likely not be very effective as conscripts anyways. It doesn't matter whether or not your effective in combat. We have millions of other roles you can fill.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:59 AM
1

This is a stupid straw man. Democracy and conscription can be directly linked in this situation, as the government and people themselves espoused it as the only way for the state to safe guard itself. Slavery is no where in this equation.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 12:58 AM
1

Meh, the property requirements are being dissolved over decades and culminated in the early 1860s. Not exactly the same thing. The first major power to introduce democracy was also the first to bring about modern conscription. Every man over 15 and under 40 had to join the military, and everyone else had to farm or nit clothes.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:53 PM
1

Sounds like a great argument against conscription. You'll actually have to qualify why, otherwise this is all useless posturing. The same could be said of those who comprise the army who is attacking you. And that's not going to stop a conscription based army initiating an invasion, is it?
/r/MensRights30/04/16 11:51 PM
0

You are delusional.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 02:46 PM
1

Your language was very clear. Then stop being disingenuous. Please be honest or we can't have a conversation. Then why are you here?
/r/MensRights30/04/16 02:41 PM
0

My username just keeps checking out with you. It does? Because right now I'm laughing. Read what you wrote, it's obvious. We can't have a conversation unless you're honest. You're an idiot. Apparently discussing something equals condoning it to you.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 01:49 PM
0

Are you retarded? In what way is explaining why the draft was used in Vietnam defending the war?
/r/MensRights30/04/16 01:34 PM
2

You can have a voluntary military and a national culture wherein people recognize the need to defend the nation without conscription. You'll never be able to fight total war, which most wars threatening statehood are, without conscription. The vast majority of people simply don't want to lay down their lives for a future they very may well not see.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 12:44 PM
1

Show me where I defended the Vietnam War please, or stop talking shit.
/r/MensRights30/04/16 08:48 AM
3

Laughable on it's face. SO objectively wrong I shouldn't even have to type anything. Objectively? You have to prove that, so citation needed. If there is no one to protect the state, then you cannot expect that state to continue. In the event of invasion, conscription may very well be required to defend the state. Even in offensive actions, it can be necessary. One of the reasons the draft was used in Vietnam was because the US could not defend Europe against Soviet forces and fight in Vietnam w…
/r/MensRights30/04/16 06:18 AM
1

Still appeal to tradition? Yep. Go up to a co-worker and ask them for sex flat out, then. I like to keep my sex life away from work. "I'm sorry, miss, but around this place it is expected that you want to be groped if you rub up against a guy while dancing". ring ring ring! straw man! Again, you misunderstand communication. If you are dancing and a woman comes up to you and grinds on you, you can be forgiven for misunderstanding that as her wanting you to go further too, just as she did in the f…
/r/MensRights30/04/16 02:19 AM
1

Flirting isn't consent to sex. woosh A woman can edge you, bring you right up to the moment of sex, and then deny you at the last moment. You can't say "hey, you were flirting with me, therefore I should be able to have sex with you now". Again, straw man. She has every right to deny him sex. That doesn't mean that him initiating it is rape, it's a situation easily settled by her saying "no" and him saying "sorry, I misunderstood", just as yyou continually misunderstand human communication. You …
/r/MensRights30/04/16 01:48 AM
3

What you're doing is claiming that a mystery unit of "social cues" or "context" validates what is otherwise sexual harassment. No. What you are now doing s straw manning. You are a despicable person. On what Earth does social cues (eg, grinding when dancing, flirting, hand gestures, etc) equal a skin tight article of clothing? In 'context', a man could 'rape' his wife because he married her, so he was granted legal right to have sex with her body even if she didn't want to have sex. This is far …
/r/MensRights30/04/16 01:18 AM
5

A lot of sexting is done to attract the recipient – either by an existing girlfriend or boyfriend, or by someone who wants a relationship with the recipient. What you are doing here is what many feminists do with the "if it's not a yes it's a no" thing. You're ignoring all context, social cues, etc. If they are in a relationship, it may not have been directly asked for, but's not exactly inappropriate. If they want a relationship, then it is either due to social cues or the fact that they have a…
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:40 PM
9

Most instances of teen sexting begin with it being unsolicited, e.g. they send it to someone they're getting close with without the other person asking. source or gtfo
/r/MensRights29/04/16 11:24 PM
1

Isn't his admission evidence to her doing it as well?
/r/MensRights29/04/16 08:03 AM
1

More effort than feminists actually put in.
/r/MensRights29/04/16 05:56 AM
3

As if the Libs would change anything.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 09:24 PM
2

There is a difference between a woman wearing make up and lying about birth control, much in the same way there is a difference between a man lying about his penis size and condom use. Your entire comment is just a stupid diatribe that really reads like something someone from /r/trp would say.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 09:09 PM
5

That's a terrible analogy on your part. There are no consequences except maybe a loss of libido from an unwanted ass-slap. There are a multitude of problems arising from lying about something as serious as birth control, especially when the male would presumably not have had sex if he'd known she was not on birth control. This is lying, and lying in order to get sex is rape, especially if no sex would have occurred without lying.
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:59 AM
1

>be me >obama >be black >give speech >thunderous applause >"we love white people" >black >white >idon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpeg
/r/MensRights28/04/16 07:56 AM
3

I misread it.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 12:02 PM
1

I believe male and female (which evolved long before humans were around) evolved from the splitting of an ancestor species into two separate species that evolved and lived in a symbiotic relationship. Your beliefs are wrong. We can perfectly trace human lineage to early apes, and none of your beliefs add up with that.
/r/MensRights27/04/16 09:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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