TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

try_____another Archive

View 0 posts and 161 comments by try_____another on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

No laws should ever have a religious exemption, because if something is important enough to enforce through state power it is too important to exempt people from for something as wooly as religion. In this case though a religious exemption would make the law mostly pointless, because the test for whether a religous exemption applies is not whether god wants something but whether you think god wants it, and the bar for sincerity of belief is ludicrously low. To reduce the impact of a first amendm…
/r/MensRights12/04/23 02:04 PM
1

The position of the council (the apostles, plus the replacement for Judas) was that only the specific requirements they listed (no formication, not eating meat sacrificed to idols, etc) applied to the whole world through the new covenant, while the old covenant continued to apply to the descendants of Abraham even if they were Christian, though Jesus had already endorsed Samaritan worship as being OK, and I don’t think anyone really worried about the Ishmaelites at the time. Bringing it back on …
/r/MensRights26/03/23 11:46 AM
1

The council of Jerusalem (recounted in Acts, and summarised in several letters), which ruled that Christians who aren’t Jews don’t have to follow the Jewish law, explicitly said that that only applies to those who aren’t circumcised, and that those who are circumcised have to follow the whole law. The Catholic Church later ruled that it only applied to those circumcised on religious grounds, and that anyone claiming that circumcision gave a religious benefit was a heretic. (Paul said much the sa…
/r/MensRights26/03/23 10:39 AM
1

Is she advocating for people not being able to do the procedure or just advocating it not to be used as much or by certain people? I believe she was mostly advocating for trans treatment, but she’s since clarified that she would like to see it banned for children except with a religous carve out that makes the ban utterly pointless. And would it not interfere with the first amendment for Jewish, Catholic, and Cristian peoples? It shouldn’t, because the their rights should only extend so far as i…
/r/MensRights26/03/23 09:59 AM
1

Since circumcision is a state matter (falling within the police power), that’s the right place for her to be.
/r/MensRights26/03/23 09:42 AM
2

Anyone in our side is useful: if nothing else she’s an extra vote on our side on this particular issue.
/r/MensRights26/03/23 09:41 AM
3

Assuming the medical advice was based on your best instead of the doctor’s best profits, nothing except that if there’s a god out there he hates you. Shit happens, and sometimes it can’t be avoided. It’s when people deliberately make the world more shit (especially for no concrete benefit to themselves) that there’s something wrong.
/r/MensRights26/03/23 09:39 AM
1

It’s also a bastardisation of Marxism which tries to turn everything possible into a two-sided class struggle regardless of how many classes there actually are and what alliances might exist (though to be fair, the Maoist third worlders did that first) in much the same way as many of the lolbertailrian right will try to make everything into a market regardless of whether that makes sense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 11:30 PM
2

I think sending unsolicited dick picks is a mixture of what you said, the misspelled 419 email strategy (filter out anyone who isn’t thirsty with a low-effort message so the tiny positive response rate is worth the effort), and that it is sort of the equivalent of a narrowly cropped cleavage shot, in that with careful framing and presentation you can hide an extra 5% BF or so.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 10:09 PM
2

There was a study by the Optus Foundation in Australia a while back that found that how degrees are marketed makes a big difference. Late-teenage girls seem to be much more influenced by the social impact of their work than boys are, whereas boys are more influenced by “build and play with these cool toys”, and both are equally influenced by “make lots of money and become powerful”. Changing the marketing material was found to change the ratio of applicants.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 09:33 PM
2

You have to break down those professions a bit more finely, because women made up the majority of maths students at the unis I attended. However, in less-equal societies like some parts of the Muslim world and Southern Asia (eg Nepal) civil engineering is considered an acceptable job for women, and it’s one that can put her in a senior position in the workplace. Otoh, here law, finance, etc. are the best degrees for those seeking wealth or power unless you’re part of the small minority who could…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/22 09:25 PM
3

Without getting into whether men or women have it worse in any particular country, let alone breaking it down by class lines etc., most MR legal issues are purely internal matters to be worked out between the government and people of the applicable country. While I didn’t vote, I’d I had I’d have interpreted it as “in your country…”
/r/MensRights31/07/22 09:33 PM
1

My bet is that it will be someone like Orban, who gets to take the benefits at home of an anti-Islam policy without actually saying it, and when criticised by the rest of the EU he can point to opinion polls in their own countries and say “I’m just doing what my voters want, why don’t you do the same? Now who’s undemocratic?”
/r/MensRights15/05/22 11:45 AM
3

If nothing else, as far as I’m aware there’s no group or community that cuts women’s or girls’ genitals that doesn’t also cut men or boys (and I’ve been making that assertion for at least a decade and have never been contradicted, so presumably no one else has heard of one either). Since MGM is more noticeable, there’d be more chance of cutting parents getting caught, and those girls with older brothers would have a chance to be saved if his mutilation is discovered in time.
/r/MensRights15/05/22 11:40 AM
2

Regarding conscription: it’s hard to imagine a war important enough to warrant conscription that isn’t going to be over in a nuclear exchange before they’ve got through basic, unless someone is crazy enough to fight another Vietnam war but not ruthless enough to “take the gloves off” and adopt the full Lord Kitchener approach. However, if there is a such a war everyone should be conscripted unless they’re mentally unsuitable(for whatever reason, including age) or obviously untrustworthy. After a…
/r/MensRights08/05/22 09:27 AM
1

The most recent time was the federal FGM law, which was overturned.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 05:27 AM
1

Or arguably mutualism (both sides benefit) because you get a baby from it. IMO that’s a giant cherry on top of the cake of downsides of pregnancy.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 05:16 AM
2

IMO the critical distinction is that one definitely affects something everyone can agree is a person, and one affects something g which can be argued, in at least some cases, to only be a potential future person. Also, the only harm to parents from not circumcising is the fear that they might go to hell, if they’re the wrong type of religious nutter, whereas pregnancy can damage a woman’s body.
/r/MensRights08/05/22 05:05 AM
1

In most places the child support laws don’t give them any choice, unless the biological father can win custody of the child. Even when sperm has been obtained using badly forged paperwork from a repository of frozen sperm, the biological father has been on the hook (and not, say, the people who fucked up and gave out the sperm). I’d just like to see what happens when someone figures out how to induce Meiosis in other cells, and manages to obtain a hair from some billionaire
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/22 02:47 PM
1

Buy one in Detroit for a dollar. Sure, it’s probably contaminated with industrial waste and asbestos, no the water might be poisonous and there’s a good chance someone will rip your house apart for scrap, but at least it’s cheap !
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/22 02:40 PM
1

I’ve seen a newspaper take a press release, and in a fit of enthusiasm rearrange the text to look better in the page layout. Unfortunately they didn’t have any subeditors because it was an incoherent ungrammatical mess, even if you didn’t know that the technical content was now nonsense.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/22 02:33 PM
1

I think he was referring to the military victory over the republic, which they won by having novel strategic ideas like thinking that paying the people you want to stop you getting killed is a good idea, and selling their ammunition is a bad idea.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/01/22 02:21 PM
1

And with Starmer trying to convince everyone that the reason he’s losing the Muslim vote is that Muslims are all antisemites, the Tories aren’t going to do anything to deter them from voting Tory. Meanwhile, Labour can’t do anything even if they were in government because the only pretext for the leadership spill that put him in power that doesn’t make him look like an idiot or liar is antisemitism, so he can’t do anything about it either (plus his wife probably wouldn’t be happy).
/r/MensRights04/08/21 02:52 AM
2

I’d suggest the line should be “if this happened to you involuntarily, would you get a disability pension or be eligible for legally required adjustments”, translated into the local legal idiom. In American terms, that last bit would probably be “would it count as a disability under the ADA”.
/r/MensRights04/08/21 02:37 AM
2

What is your religion? Most Christians that do it and claim it has some non-medical justification derive the practice from jewish law (usually while still accepting all the rest of the consequences of the council of Jerusalem), picked it up from Muslim rulers, or got it from Kellogg and the others who explicitly aimed to deter non-reproductive sexual activity.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 02:34 PM
2

The worst case, last resort treatment for phimosis is circumcision. You might as well replace your teeth with implants to prevent cavities.
/r/MensRights19/07/21 02:27 PM
2

If a competent doctor couldn’t have found a better solution, you’re one of a tiny and unlucky minority, and many of those exceptional casss come from improper care (such as prematurely retracting the foreskin) which should itself be punished. In such cases it should be legal, but only with adequate safeguards to ensure the doctor is indeed competent and also to ensure that he’s honest and not motivated to falsify his diagnosis by religious or cultural factors (as occurs with fake exemptions for …
/r/MensRights19/07/21 02:25 PM
3

In my country the legal theory is that parental rights exist solely as the consequence of entrusting parents as the guardians and protectors of their children’s rights, but that doesn’t (in theory) allow them to act to diminish their children’s rights or prevent them exercising them later. In practice there remain a number of laws that haven’t been updated to fit the principles (which have been unchanged since the early 1960s, and were built on earlier legal reasoning), and allowing nontheraputi…
/r/MensRights19/07/21 01:47 PM
1

Even more closely, the fox who lost his tail.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/06/21 02:53 PM
2

It would have done before the first amendment was reinterpreted to allow soviet subversion agencies to operate freely: SCOTUS has backflipped on that issue more than once.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/05/21 03:06 PM
1

I’m more interested in undoing the deregulation of religion, partly because all the reasons s given for doing it turned out to be wrong, and partly because religion has power and all power should be controlled by the voters. However the Catholic Church should be banned as a matter of urgency because it is a foreign state entity with form for political interference and sedition, and the same goes for any Islamic organisation with Saudi funding.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/04/21 12:32 AM
1

Most Danish men support the ban. IDK about where you are, but in both Australia and the UK the majority of people actively campaigning against abortion specifically are women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/21 04:06 AM
1

Hitler wasn’t anti-theist and made deals with the major churches. Other nazi leaders wanted to create a “proper” Germanic religion, or had weird spirit beliefs, but religion want really important to Hitler. Stalin’s main concern about religion was preventing the kind of mistake made in Egypt or Iran, where religious groups known to be opposed to the regime were allowed to provide cover to political movements. Once the church was thoroughly purged, it could be allowed to come back. Pol Pot was cl…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/04/21 04:04 AM
1

UN New York staff and senior officials have some sort of quasi-diplomatic status, though IDK if that includes exemptions from taxes. The agencies are mostly just ordinary employees hired locally or people seconded from their home governments.
/r/MensRights08/03/21 11:39 PM
2

Even if that were true, it would be no-one’s business but the Danes. It is their country and as long as it remains theirs they should be allowed to run it as they are fit so long as they aren’t harming their neighbours by causing pollution, plague, inconvenient numbers of refugees or other emigrants, or the like, without meddling by outsiders.
/r/MensRights21/02/21 05:59 AM
2

Adult women can get genital piercings, labiaplasty, and so on. There’s a continuum of harmful behaviours, from having the odd extra beer to extreme self-mutilation, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. If what they want to do to themselves isn’t going to make them a burden on society (at least beyond the level which can be mitigated by sin taxes) and they’re not obviously suffering from a curable mental illness, I’d say they’re on the right side of the line.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 10:10 PM
3

It sounds good, but it only applies where the boys are old enough to formally object in advance, or if one of their custodial parents objects for them. It’s a small step in the right direction, but simply following the plain language of the offences against the person act would be better.
/r/MensRights03/01/21 04:35 AM
2

Since you were underage and did not have the full consequences explained to you properly, your consent may not have been legally valid (though IDK whether it is even required in Austria, your parents might have been enough on their own regardless of your wishes).
/r/MensRights10/12/20 01:26 PM
1

Probably not that, as poor supply chains would make them useless. I think it is just that the USA and a few other countries want a “solution” to AIDS that doesn’t involve cheap antiretrovirals (gates foundation aid is even conditional on signing a treaty renouncing the right to use the WIPO’s public health exemptions), and there’s too many people on the paying side who don’t want the solution to be condoms either.
/r/MensRights10/12/20 01:23 PM
1

Waskett and Morris probably top the list, though Waskett had his main account banned from that page for excessive rules lawyering in bad faith.
/r/MensRights27/11/20 09:29 AM
2

Yes. Before the Maccabean revolt, only the end of the foreskin was removed (though that still removed the rigged band). Because hellenised jews were performing foreskin restoration so they could attend gymnasia without wearing a sheath, some of the more radical Pharisees advocated periah (the modern, maximally destructive, version of Jewish circumcision). That gradually became the standard for Pharisees and aligned factions, and when the Sadducees and Hellenic Jews lost their position in the com…
/r/MensRights24/10/20 02:33 PM
5

It’s roughly the equivalent of the foreskin for the clitoris, though it isn’t as sensitive as the foreskin and lacks the stretch receptors. On younger girls it doesn’t necessarily look distinct from their inner labia, so you might not have noticed it, but it tends to become more noticeable as they get older.
/r/MensRights24/10/20 02:26 PM
3

I’m not upset, don’t worry. The reason 15 is too young is because religiously/culturally motivated parental pressure is likely to be a common reason for circumcision, and parents can exert a lot of coercion until adulthood. For example, in many countries you’re not entitled to full adult wages and benefits until some time after 18, and can’t easily get things like tuition help if your parents are uncooperative, and while you’re still underage parents have a lot of room to make your life miserabl…
/r/MensRights24/10/20 02:19 PM
5

Anything from scratching the clitoral hood (some Muslim sects, such as the one responsible for overturning the US federal FGM law), through to removing the clitoral hood (Malaysia, Indonesia, and elsewhere, making it the most common form), to removing the external clitoris, through to sewing everything up and just leaving a tiny hole for menses (rare, but most campaigners would have you beleive this is the norm).
/r/MensRights24/10/20 02:12 PM
3

The way Kellog said to do it was to do it when a boy had started masturbating, describe it as a punishment for masturbation, do it without pain relief, cut as tightly as possible to both remove as much erogenous tissue as possible and leave the penis uncomfortably tight when erect, and to use silver wire for sutures.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 12:11 AM
1

Not only is that obvious, it’s also a plain matter of historical fact that what became Solomon’s kingdom was entirely within the Egyptian sphere of influence until the wars described in Kings and the whole region was under direct Egyptian rule throughout most of the time corresponding to the books of Judges. OTOH, there was some natural disaster that happened to part of the army during the right general time. My assumption is that the early jews were a largish priest cult (which were often famil…
/r/MensRights03/05/20 12:16 PM
5

In England and Wales, the plain reading of the Offences Against the Person Act would make it at least ABH if not GBH, but the courts have decide to use it as part of their ongoing power grab. Fortunately a sane Supreme Court which actually respects the constitution would properly interpret the law, or parliament could do the job themselves and do it right (the crown in parliament has absolute powers there’s no question of separation of powers).
/r/MensRights03/04/20 01:17 PM
2

Assault, including sexual assault, falls within the scope of the police power, which is a state matter unless some aspect crosses state lines.
/r/MensRights14/03/20 04:28 AM
2

No he can’t, that’s a state matter. See the decision in the federal FGM case last year.
/r/MensRights13/03/20 11:46 PM
3

Chances are it wasn’t him who did the thinking (because it isn’t a major political issue and that’s what any president does), and even bad people can do good things for reasons of their own.
/r/MensRights13/03/20 11:44 PM
2

It’s better that he does it because he won’t pull it too far, but if you’re gentle it should be OK. It starts to noticeably detach around 2-3, and is usually fully detached by 10 or so but there’s nothing wrong with it still being partially attached until late in puberty.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:54 AM
2

There was another summary paper like Gardner’s in the early 1970s which caught the attention of the Australian and New Zealand medical authorities and lead to them reversing their position from support to opposition very quickly.
/r/MensRights05/03/20 08:45 AM
3

There’s a fairly high percentage of more or less asymptomatic carriers, who are nonetheless somewhat infectious, and the infection lingers. If you’ve ever had a cold sore, you’re probably still infected.
/r/MensRights27/02/20 12:46 AM
6

There have been population-scale studies indicating correlations between circumcision rates and assorted mental problems in adults: circumcision is commonly used as a proxy when studying the long term effect of neonatal pain or painkillers, but that risks confounding factors from cultural, economic, and medical institutional factors. As far as I know there hasn’t been a direct person-by-person study, which is what’s really needed, though there could still be confounding factors.
/r/MensRights10/02/20 09:51 AM
1

fMRI is just a matter of doing it repeatedly and quickly (since you usually want time series data) and how you interpret the data afterwards. A machine useable for fMRI can be used for other medical MRI.
/r/MensRights10/02/20 09:15 AM
7

The major problem is that, if the hospital’s ethics board are right, it is at least in Canada illegal to conduct the experiment properly. To do it ethically, it would have to be done somewhere many baby boys were circumcised for no medical reason in a medical setting and where MRI facilities were readily available. That doesn’t leave many countries to find somewhere it can be done properly without breaking any laws.
/r/MensRights10/02/20 09:11 AM
2

One of the authors of their paper admitted to skewing the results to provide political talking points to oppose European anti-circumcision bills for his coreligionists.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/02/20 09:38 AM
3

Two girls from, IIRC, Michigan had had ceremonial scratches which left small scars. Their parents and the person who did it were prosecuted under the federal FGM laws, but the judge dismissed the case because he considered the law an invalid application of the commerce clause. The federal government decided not to appeal. AFAIK, they haven’t been re-prosecuted under state law, but IDK why, since AIUI double jeopardy doesn’t apply.
/r/MensRights30/11/19 09:13 PM
3

Not at a federal level: that’s what that court case last year determined. Yes, all forms of genital mutilation should be illegal, and with extremely harsh penalties, but it is a state matter not within the scope of federal law.
/r/MensRights30/11/19 08:22 AM
2

Except it wasn’t in his manifesto and since the federal government lacks the power to legislate on that matter it would be dishonest of him to keep it in there even if it had been after the FGM case failed.
/r/MensRights26/11/19 11:57 PM
3

And among the religious Americans are millions of Baptists who forcefully induct their children into their religion through baptism. Baptists, for all their general insanity, at least don’t baptise children (or, like the Catholics do, confirm children and claim that makes them a member).
/r/MensRights30/10/19 04:08 AM
1

From the religious viewpoint, no country has yet passed a ban, and never will. It is mostly banned in Tasmania, though that’s not a country, because the Tasmanian laws on medical proxy consent only allow parents to consent to procedures recognised as relevant and sufficiently beneficial by the consensus of Australian doctors. The exception isnif itnis done as part of an aboriginal ritual (because federal laws takes precedence) and that there’s no long arm provision, and that a test case hasn’t b…
/r/MensRights16/09/19 12:53 PM
3

Which accounts?
/r/MensRights30/05/19 03:48 AM
1

INo itnis hood policy for countries to do it, but restoring the principle of internal sovereignty is more important, because it is our protection against interference as well.
/r/MensRights25/04/19 11:47 AM
1

In South Africa it is mostly tribal religion. In particular the Xhosa seem to be the worst for deaths because they insist on using a big chopper and a piece of string with no disinfectant or anything.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 06:36 AM
1

In the case that lead to the American federal law being overturned, the mutilation involved was a tiny scratch that in one case left a scar invisible to the naked eye, with no tissue removed? Should that be legal as a matter of principle?
/r/MensRights24/04/19 05:13 AM
1

While Inagree with your general argument, what Tanzanians do and Chinese did are/were internal matters for their people and government to resolve among themselves. Let them do whatever they like over there, and anyone who tries to interfere in our countries should also be told to go to hell.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 05:11 AM
2

The supposedly greater risk of a fatal or otherwise catastrophic fuckup in FGM is one of the principal arguments for banning it only for girls.
/r/MensRights24/04/19 04:54 AM
2

One important difference is that abortion destroys its own evidence, whereas circumcision creates it and it cannot be destroyed. That is, if you have an abortion and they don’t actually catch you in the act or while cleaning up, you just swear it was a miscarriage or that you were never pregnant and there’s nothing they can do. OTOH, if you circumcise someone the effect is there for anyone to see until his corpse is gone, so as soon as there is sufficient suspicion for a warrant the police can h…
/r/MensRights24/04/19 04:50 AM
1

Because if they didn’t they’d have to support some other solution to AIDS, and that means cheap ARVs, and countries owned by the drug companies with parents aren’t going to like that.
/r/MensRights26/03/19 07:48 AM
1

Someone could sue for the tort of battery (which the CPS can’t kill, unlike a private prosecution), but they’d have to do it before 21 IIRC because that’s the statute of limitations. That would only get civil damages, but AIUI the definition of the tort is the same as the crime, so the precedent would be useful. Even if that didn’t motivate the COS and police, it might provide a basis for a case using anti-discrimination laws against the relevant officials and officers, or a human rights act cas…
/r/MensRights15/02/19 12:15 PM
2

If you look at his reasons that circumcision is a good idea and not just god having a power trip, they’re not exactly convincing either. The TLDR is that it reduces lust and discourages recreational sex without preventing procreation. He also said that women have trouble leaving an intact man once they slept with one.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 11:03 AM
4

You’d think so, but lower courts have previously allowed boys to be circumcised by any person with any tool in any conditions provided the parents agree, and no one has ever taken a case all the way.
/r/MensRights13/02/19 10:21 AM
1

I think the reasoning is that the chances that anyone really wants to be seriously hacked about by an unqualified person is pretty low, compared to the probability that they’re mad, being intimidated, are trying to cover up something unlawful that went wrong, or had been conned (just consider some of the crazy stories of nonsense surgery in China).
/r/MensRights13/02/19 10:19 AM
1

For the two girls in the case that lead to the American law being struck down, no tissue was removed at all and in one case the scar was only visible under magnification.
/r/MensRights26/01/19 08:27 AM
2

And because America has threatened to impose trade sanctions on any country which bans it
/r/MensRights26/01/19 08:24 AM
2

AIUI it’s a kind of loan pending the outcome of the lawsuit, to prevent things getting worse in the meantime.
/r/MensRights10/01/19 10:07 PM
1

Also, at the time Jewish legends assign for the exodus, the whole region through to Syria was under Egyptian suzerainty where they weren’t ruling directly.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 02:19 AM
1

The fourteenth amendment obviously would, because later legislation of equal or higher type implicitly trumps previous laws when there is a conflict, unless the previous law contains a requirement for a notwithstanding clause. However, that wouldn’t matter if SCOTUS hadn’t misinterpreted the intention of the first amendment. It is clear from the writings of those arguing for it that it was not intended to permit bodily or financial harm to anyone else.
/r/MensRights30/12/18 02:09 AM
1

Yes. Equality before the law is more important, especially when past experience has demonstrated that there is no chance at all of improving the law further once you get your first step. No law should allow any distinction on the basis of sex except for the efficient operation of the health system and for ensuring the punitive effect of prisons, and for identifying violations of this rule.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 09:56 AM
1

Improved communications increases the spread of new and better plagues, increased population and economies of scale mean more boys being cut with the same filthy knives. OTOh, better paramedical care and formalised death certificates and the like mean we know about more too.
/r/MensRights06/12/18 08:36 AM
1

If that’s what they really objected to they could put forward an amendment, or if the rules about petitions don’t work that way, introduce a bill that doesn’t have that flaw.
/r/MensRights30/11/18 07:14 AM
4

From some of the other comments, it appears he’s fallen foul of the laws against quacks, so even if it had been “successful” he’d have been a criminal, though he’d probably not have been found out.
/r/MensRights17/11/18 11:17 AM
2

Any nontheraputic practice… Religion doesn’t make it any better, but it doesn’t make it worse either.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 02:03 PM
1

“But” is hardly the conjunction I would use.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 02:01 PM
1

Because JJJ’s Hack has been relying on clickbait trash and whatever rubbish someone else will pay for since their funding was cut a while back. Before that they were a bit erratic, now they’re below Viral Thread or Huffinton Post.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 01:49 PM
1

Muslims outnumber Jews enormously in Australia (IIRC there’s fewer Jews than Hindus , Buddhists, mormons, Sikhs, and Jains, but more than Shinto or Zoroastrians, they’re only the fourth religion after Christianity, atheism, and Islam for historical reasons). There’s a few doing it because they were cut, too, plus the usual quota of loonies just like every other decision we leave to parents.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 01:46 PM
1

It is probably illegal in Tasmania unless the boy is aboriginal, but there’s never been a test case and there’s no long-arm provisions, and no ruling as to which class of battery it it.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 10:49 AM
1

A western country with direct democratic legislation, or somewhere like Hungary. The former because people want it, the latter because both “remote kebab” and to prove that they’re more democratic than a government that’s defying the wishes of a large supermajority of the public.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 10:47 AM
1

A large percentage of the population supports a ban when asked, and they have limited citizen-initiation for laws which is how this got this far.
/r/MensRights09/10/18 10:45 AM
1

IIRC Stephen Fry has commented negatively on the subject (and he’s ethnically Jewish and popular with guardian readers), and there’s an American actor who was circumcised as an adult following an injury and hated it (i forget who it was but he is famous).
/r/MensRights16/09/18 12:34 PM
1

In countries where it is already rare, the best bet is to try to make the majority who don’t even think about it voice their opposition. That’s not enough on its own, because the politicians know it isn’t an election-winning issue but it provides ammunition for the other parties to talk about politicians refusing to obey the will of the people (especially useful in the UK where more people support banning circumcision than ever supported Brexit and May has been banging on about the will of the p…
/r/MensRights16/09/18 11:25 AM
1

ISTM obviousnthst as the legal parent-equivalent the relevant state official or his delegate would have that power. However, I would be fairly surprised if they do it in states where it isn’t covered by their health for poor people scheme, because it would be hassle and spending that the child welfare people can’t spare.
/r/MensRights16/09/18 11:12 AM
3

The article about loss of sensitivity was related to short term effects in adult men, not the long term effects of circumcising children. No one is proposing banning adults from having themselves circumcised if they’re of sound mind. It also entirely neglects the sensitivity of the removed tissue.
/r/MensRights02/09/18 09:58 AM
3

I don’t think Americans really count as civilised people, white or otherwise, for this and other reasons.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 06:34 AM
1

In preindustrial societies life expectancy is low but life expectancy at 20 for men and menopause for women is pretty good, because chances are if you made it past childhood and didn’t die in childbirth you’d live until you were pretty ancient even by modern standard. AIDS mucks that up a lot, but it is generally the slightly more developed countries where 50-60yos are at death’s door because they have all that industrial pollution and terrible diet and so on.
/r/MensRights19/08/18 06:30 AM
1

In most western countries, religious freedom rights are based on what you believe rather than what any particular sized church believes, or what a rational person reading the scriptures would believe, or some such standard. Those authorities simply help strengthen your claim of sincerity, to prove you’re not making it up for your own convenience. That’s because the alternatives are to have some threshold for a minimum sized community, require churches to be approved by the state (which undermine…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 11:08 AM
1

Whether or not you support intactivism, the Danish parliament are spitting in the face of 83% of the electorate who want it banned. That alone is enough reason to ban it.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 10:56 AM
1

If he could sue them and get a perfectly working foreskin with absolutely no difference to what he would have had, with all damage to the glans and meatus foxes, I’d be willing to go along with that as a sop to religious fanatics. However, the current state of medical technology does not allow that, and money is a lousy substitute especially where the damage was wilful and pointless.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 10:52 AM
1

If it doesn’t matter the child should make the choice as and when he can make it freely, while if it does matter the experts (who, in Denmark, have said that it is on balance harmful) should make the decision. Either way, the parents shouldn’t.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 10:50 AM
1

While I think parents should be punished for any avoidable health problems they caused their children, feeding them badly is harder to prosecute unless they’re actually starving them, because there’s so many opportunities for blame shifting. OTOH, saying “you may not consent to circumcision of your underage son: it is invalid in any circumstances except where a doctor is willing to swear in court that it was essential (in which case your consent is unnecessary). If you fail to prevent it happeni…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 10:46 AM
1

First, to equate it with female genital mutilation where the clitoris is cut out and removed is just ignorant. First, IMO are the number of nerves destroyed by each. Also, not all FGM is clitordectormy: consider the currently ongoing FGM case in America, where one of the defences our forward is that it isn’t true FGM (despite being defined as such in law) because it is less severe than circumcision and, on the same basis, that there isn’t sufficient public interest to interfere with their religi…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 10:33 AM
1

Herzl was opposed to circumcision and his sons were not circumcised, does that make him anti Semitic? Also, if you’re using it in the Nazi racial sense (rather than the pre-Nazi religious sense) not giving boys from the “Jewish race” equality with native white boys is itself anti Semitic.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 09:46 AM
1

Western European consensus has to a large extent shifted away the ancient law of pater familias (which even before Constantine was not absolute, especially for citizens) to the view that parents are almost trustees with the duty of bringing their children to adulthood as best as possible. That means protecting the future man’s rights from harm by, at best, we’ll-meaning stupidity of his parents, who generally aren’t experts in anything relevant and never are experts in everything relevant.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 09:27 AM
0

In most developed countries they have, ranging from “its useless” (which would amount to almost a ban for anything else, since for everything else you need a valid pressing medical reason to do it if they can’t consent themselves and individual doctors would have to come under with special pretexts if they wanted to do it anyway), to “its unethical and shouldn’t be done”. Still, why do you think that allowing a private guild to determine what is and isn’t legal for people to do is better than al…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:52 AM
0

What do you think it is for then? If it does anything it is forcing someone’s opinions on the governed, if it does nothing it isn’t a government. Even the ultimate ancap minimalist government is still imposing values about the absolute nature of property, the scope of contracts, the appropriate level of force to enforce contracts, and so on.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:44 AM
1

God told Christians at the Council of Jerusalem that they didn’t need to circumcise or follow most of the rest of the Jewish Law if they weren’t of Jewish descent. That’s why Christians don’t keep kosher and so on. People only call it a Christian thing if they’re looking for a rationalisation for something which started for other reasons.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:39 AM
1

I agree with banning smacking. It may not do any harm in moderation, but any grey in the law is bad and it needs to be simple enough for the worst parent to understand and for evidence to be clear.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:26 AM
2

None of them (at least not most of the ones with any real influence, especially since Ayan Hirsi Ali went out of fashion) seem to grasp that banning all circumcision would reduce FGM. Even aside from the moral consistency and so on points Ali made, everyone who cuts girls cuts boys, and many girls will have older brother who will be cut first. That’s easier to detect, so it increases the chance that the authorities will intervene to save her, whereas now they won’t have any legally valid evidenc…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:22 AM
1

If the danish cabinet is similar to most Westminster cabinets, the rest of the ministers will simply nod through whatever the relevant minister says without even reading the main discussion paper unless it is a major political issue, a constituency issue, or their department is interested. The ministers then bring along the votes of their personal factions, so effectively one person sets most policy on each matter for the government parties.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 08:10 AM
1

In most countries the only reason it is done is because of religion, and you can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Aside from efforts to convert those people to no religion (or at least a less bad religion) the most practical option is to raise he same kind of outrage that occurred against FGM (which used to be rare but legal in the west) and persuade everyone else to stamp it out. That also means that a religious exemption would make the whole thing pointless…
/r/MensRights17/08/18 06:45 AM
2

Anyone who would break the law to commit ABH (at least) on their child for the sake of religion is quite definitely the kind of religious lunatic we’d be safer without. Meanwhile, if the government thinks the police can’t enforce the law (given that it is trivial as soon as you have enough suspicion for a warrant, unless the law is designed to fail or drafted by the same moron who wrote the British anti-FGM law), the relevant minister and the senior police should be sacked for incompetence.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 06:37 AM
2

There was an opinion poll posted around the time the person was presented which showed that 80-something percent of Danes supported a ban without religious exceptions.
/r/MensRights17/08/18 06:32 AM
1

IIRC it increases male to female PIV and top-to-bottom anal transmission in those studies that counted that, but of course Morris, Bossio etc don’t want to draw attention to that. Also, for some completely unknown reason, whatever it does achieve works far better on black men than white.
/r/MensRights04/08/18 03:13 AM
1

It is a useful line in places where only a minority do it, since then the problem is getting enough of a majority to oppose it angrily enough so the politicians will stand up to America, Israel, and the Vatican and ban it. As you say, it is probably less useful where you’re trying to persuade people to stop doing it to their own children, but where it is very rare, the people doing it mostly think it is god’s will and can’t possibly be reasoned out of it.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 11:14 AM
0

Not for hospital insurance in Australia. If you take out private hospital cover you often end up paying more for the same doctors in the same facilities for anything essential or urgent. The whole sector is set up to funnel money to the insurance companies at a huge cost to the taxpayer (for the incentives to force people to pay them) and the patients.
/r/MensRights11/07/18 12:19 PM
1

Bizarrely, no, AIUI. However, if a person in a regulated medical profession does it, it must be done in proper conditions and so on. AIUI that’s a hangover from when the offences against the person act codified old common law offences against the person. Plain reading of the law would say that circumcision was banned unless it fell into one of the exceptions (personal request or medical necessity), but because no-one cared what Jews did to their children back then it wasn’t enforced in that cont…
/r/MensRights11/07/18 12:11 PM
3

Regarding brain scans: a couple of years back I remember reading a blog post from a Canadian? teaching hospital researcher who, had done some scans informally but couldn’t get ethical approval to do a proper study or publish his preliminary data. His post was pretty much “does anyone want to look into this where the laws are more relaxed” I know that isn’t proper proof, but it is an indication that those scans have been done and if done properly would show that. There is a correlation between ci…
/r/MGTOW06/07/18 01:38 AM
3

Unless the foreskin has been damaged, but the most common cause of that is tearing as a result of forcible retraction.
/r/MensRights29/05/18 12:26 AM
5

Which isn’t true? There’s no other first world medical authority claiming that nontheraputic circumcision of children is a net benefit, and several condemning it as unethical.
/r/MensRights29/05/18 12:23 AM
1

“Ethnic Jew” seems to be the usual solution. I know someone who describes himself as half-Jewish, because his father is a non-observant (though not entirely atheist) Jew from an anglicised family but his mother is a non-observant Christian. He was brought up irreligious and is intact but participated with both families in their traditional festivals.
/r/MensRights19/05/18 10:57 AM
1

In a country like Iceland a religious exemption would make it entirely pointless. The American garrison has extraterritoriality, and the only other circumcising people are Jews and Muslims.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 06:53 AM
1

A country with citizen-initiated legislation or one of the eastern EU states seem like the most likely bets.
/r/MensRights14/05/18 06:49 AM
1

The Council of Jerusalem, at which the apostles, Paul, and a few others agreed that converts didn’t need to follow the full Jewish law, is included in the standard Sunday readings, and that explicitly mentions circumcision as being unnecessary (one of the versions of that states “let him who is uncircumcised remain uncircumcised”). Unfortunately, for political reasons the Catholic Church opposes a legal ban. They support an absolutist position on religious freedom, and circumcision is useful as …
/r/MensRights17/04/18 02:59 AM
3

Unfortunately that’s mostly Muslims and Jews, which makes it difficult.
/r/MensRights17/04/18 01:46 AM
11

I “like” how they cited a paper about the association between having a foreskin and lower penile cancer rates (54), but only used it for the circumcision rate in Denmark.
/r/MensRights06/04/18 11:31 PM
2

Even pets often are protected from cosmetic modifications, such as ear-trimming or tail docking.
/r/MensRights04/04/18 04:02 AM
1

IMO the law needs to have “by way of trade” all over the place, because otherwise it would get very messy, but I agree with you in principle.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 10:46 AM
1

Carlin, IIRC.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 10:45 AM
1

While I think that’s insane as a matter of modern policy, ISTM that both the intent of the people that wrote the second amendment and the plain meaning of the text is clear that it is supposed to cover all military equipment, at least as would be useful for land warfare (it is less clear whether it protects naval armaments because they were so routine no one would have thought to protect them). SCOTUS twisted that into a more practical compromise position, but it really is almost as dodgy as Roe…
/r/MensRights24/03/18 08:51 AM
1

Even Trump probably isn’t silly enough to use that because forcing Iceland into anyone else’s economic pocket would be a huge strategic mistake both economically and militarily.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 08:45 AM
1

In Germany the federal government altered the weightings on the various fundamental rights to legalise nontheraputic child circumcision.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 08:42 AM
1

If you have a malformed urinary tract it can reduce the risk of UTIs to no higher than for a normal boy, but fixing the underlying problem solves other issues and eliminates that benefit (unless someone actually damages the foreskin by forcibly retracting it, which American doctors used to be taught to do). Beyond that, it may be useful on a population scale to circumcise black men (it works less well in whites, no one knows why) if they’re in a high HIV environment but have low risk of infectio…
/r/MensRights24/03/18 07:49 AM
1

This isn't Rome. The original latin translates as “If you are at Rome, live in the Roman style; if you are elsewhere, live as they live there”. The man who saId it came from near the german frontier and had moved to italy. What about Chinese cultures? Italian cultures? African cultures? I am not aware of any Chinese cultural practice (except arguably blatant overt corruption, which is mostly outlawed and should be more strictly punished) that wasn’t ended by the Nationalists which violates gener…
/r/MensRights07/03/18 02:10 PM
1

You or your ancestors moved into countries with different norms (and those norms have been developing for well over a century, so it isn’t like you haven’t had fair warning ), so where there is an incompatibility both your minority numbers and your more recent arrival count against you. If it weren’t for the fact that 150+ years ago no one cared what Jews did to Jews (including their children), it would be outlawed by the standard laws covering cutting people without legitimate medical reasons.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 01:26 PM
1

Even if it is a win for the far right, if it is the right thing to do for your own reasons too then it should still be done.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 01:21 PM
1

Since feminist can mean anything from “insanely paternalistic and patronising but thinks they’re helping women” to “Valerie Solanas thinks you’re going too far” pretty much only pedants, opinionated egalitarians, outright misogynists, and people with some obligation of neutrality would say they’re not feminists.
/r/MensRights07/03/18 01:14 PM
1

If it is “too tight” and less radical treatment isn’t effective the bill would still allow it. However, unless the foreskin is damaged, that’s quite rare, and circumcising to prevent phimosis is about as silly as replacing your teeth with dentures to prevent cavities, since you’re using the worst case last resort treatment prophylactically.
/r/MGTOW19/02/18 02:17 AM
2

A variety of force majure exceptions have been allowed for centuries, starting with one for if a boy has lost 3 older brothers to complications. Rabbis are up there with Jesuits for sophisticated twisty theology, so I’m sure they’ll figure something out.
/r/MensRights19/02/18 02:10 AM
1

It should not be retracted by anyone other than the boy himself until it detaches fully from the glans, unless they are extremely gentle and do not force it at all. Otherwise it can be both painful and damaging.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:47 AM
1

There is a correlation between circumcision rates and autism, so if there is a correlation between autism and DV (which there might be, especially if you conflate child-> parent violence with IPV), a correlation should appear. It might be spurious or non-causal, but if it works that doesn’t matter.
/r/MensRights18/02/18 07:42 AM
5

The Catholic Church condemns ritual circumcision and any priest who claims any spiritual benefit for circumcision would be unfrocked and potentially expelled from the church, so their only interest is in stretching the political principle of religious freedom as far as possible to justify whatever they want to do.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 02:35 AM
3

I think the regeneration genes also conflict in operation with the genes for the rapid healing which leads to scarring, which, before we could sterilise and glue wounds, would have increased the risk of infection and repeated wound-opening, and even stitches (which might have stopped that evolving) haven’t existed long enough to effect human evolution noticeably.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 02:21 AM
1

Eating vegetables and doing homework is recommended by the relevant national authorities, so failing to ensure they do that ought to be illegal , and indeed possibly is if the children’s services people have time to deal with it. Circumcision is recommended against by the relevant national authorities, so it should not be permitted.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 10:24 AM
1

I used to be for it, as a natural result of being circumcised myself, until I found I was unable to justify it in debates on slashdot and had to concede that it had no legitimacy. Without the medical pretexts normal medical consent law would ban it, if it weren’t for the specific exclusion of circumcision from all the laws of battery, medical practice and competence, and so on, and so it ought to be banned. I reached that position while living in a city where the Jewish population was declining …
/r/MensRights04/02/18 10:21 AM
1

If it is anti-anyone it is anti-Islamic, jews are pretty much an irrelevance to those whose position is based on nationalism or cultural considerations.
/r/MensRights04/02/18 10:15 AM
2

But they’re in Iceland and so it is Iceland’s culture and religious views which should be reflected in the law. That’s the nice thing about here bing so many countries: you should be able to find one which is reasonably attractive to your desired lifestyle.
/r/MensRights03/02/18 04:23 AM
1

A medical procedure is still assault if the parents’ proxy consent is not justified by the needfor the procedure, which is why you can’t get your daughter a nose job. Circumcision had been ignored for centuries because no one cared what Jews did to Jews, but I was also thinking of things like the Amish being allowed to deny their children a proper modern education (which certainly picks their pocket) or various lunatic cults being allowed to prevent their children getting proper medical treatmen…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 09:11 PM
1

Surely the mere fact that it involves an incision would make it at least assault occasioning actual bodily harm without the unwritten exemption of circumcision (which is only there because way back when no one cared what Jews did to other Jews), unless one of the exemptions applied. I doubt you’d argue that cutting a 1” scar into your baby’s armpit would be harmless. The level of harm american parents have been allowed to cause in the name of religion is insanely high, and goes way beyond the ar…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 03:53 PM
1

political opponents can easily corner 4mab by asking if you care so much about mens health why did you support cuts backs in health care Did they support cut backs to health care? If the question was rephrased as s/support/not oppose/ then it can be simply answered with something like there are already many very large and well-funded organisations opposing health cuts, and it is unlikely that our organisation would tip the balance. This ban would save a s small amount of money, it does not contr…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 03:36 PM
1

If you want to adopt the view that what ethnics do to their own people is their problem so long as they don’t bother the ancestral majority, that’s a consistent and not entirely unreasonable view although I think it is fundamentally detrimental to public order, is fraught with difficulties when it comes to apostates and inter-breeding and intermarriage, and ultimately disaster for the state. However, IMO the law should be absolute and universal, and there should be no exemptions from its obligat…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 03:21 PM
1

It existed for a while in Victorian England, but the consequences aren’t relevant because abortion was illegal (which was circumvented by deliberately neglecting babies to death which legal), condoms were expensive, uncomfortable, and difficult to get (and didn’t work all that well), and other contraceptives were non-existent or hopelessly ineffective. Whether it would be good or bad for the state depends mainly on whether providing an incentive for men who are likely to be uninvolved fathers re…
/r/MensRights12/12/17 12:52 AM
3

It doesn’t even meet the standards required for any other surgery in most places, it is just treated as a special case or ignored officially.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 08:30 AM
1

The law is a state law, and police in Australia are all state and federal employees, sometimes operating with some local guidance. Australia uses a nearly completely dualist legal system (treaties have no effect on local law, except that courts try to comply with treaties when interpreting ambiguous laws), and I don't think the implementing laws ban this. It is a bad law, and one which ought to be fixed (and which no-one can rally justify not fixing) but it is almost certainly legal.
/r/MensRights24/12/16 05:24 AM
1

That can be addressed by giving him a shorter time limit (which here needs to be anyway so she can schedule an abortion if that is her decision) and allowing him to opt in in advance.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 12:19 AM
1

Left and right aren't really the right basis for the distinction. Modern feminism is full of the "I don't like it therefore it is evil therefore ban it" mob,1 who for most of the mid-20th century were concentrated on the right of politics. However, in the Edwardian era they'd shifted from the left of politics, where they'd largely been concentrated for as long as those terms had any meaning. Now they're on both sides, and the whole concept of liberalism is missing from the so-called Liberals (in…
/r/MensRights16/06/15 02:22 AM
1

If she's imprisoned, wouldn't the father have a substantially better chance of getting full custody of the boy anyway, in which case he could go ahead with it. IF it would help, I'd agree with you.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 01:29 PM
1

That's not universally true: in most if not all of Australia, parental consent cannot be meaningfully granted if the procedure is not beneficial (and cannot be withheld if it is essential - a weaker version of that is true in the US, too, if it is certainly life-saving). Without valid consent, the doctor is committing battery. In some states the question of benefit includes the social and religious effects (e.g. that the parents will convince their son that he is doomed to hell if they can't cir…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 01:24 PM
2

Doesn't Florida have an exception to the age limit akin to Gillick? I know some US states do, but other don't.
/r/MensRights27/05/15 01:01 PM
1

It would be interesting to know what that state's laws are regarding a child's ability to give and withhold consent to surgery - in some places the normal age restriction can be waived if the child understands the nature of the procedure and the consequences of their decisions, weighted against the importance of the decision (so the less important the procedure, the more choice they have). In the UK, the relevant law comes from Gillick, but AIUI in some parts of the US the age restriction is abs…
/r/MensRights27/05/15 12:58 PM
1

When I was in residence all the bathrooms were mixed (except the two nearest the JCR if it had been lent to the neighbouring school, which happened pretty rarely), although some still had their old signs up. At the uni itself there were a few unofficially mixed bathrooms, the best known being the ones below the clubs offices and outside the mature students' room, which were only treated as mixed after the buildings were locked, but there were also a few of the smaller ones scattered around deep …
/r/MensRights04/11/14 10:29 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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